LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

GIFT  OF 


t  MCOOt  fr  JferCtt 

<j 

Received 
Accession  No.      Oo653     ,    Class  No. 


Co 

a 

Received  ,  190     . 


f 


RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE: 
A  COMPARATIVE  STUDY  OF 
RAILWAY  RATES  AND  SERVICE 


RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE: 

A   COMPARATIVE    STUDY    OF 
RAILWAY  RATES  AND  SERVICE 


BY 

GEORGE  G.  TUNELL,  PH.  D. 

FORMERLY  STATISTICAL  EXPERT  OF  THE  U.  S.  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  AUTHOR 

OF  "TRANSPORTATION  ON  THE  GREAT  LAKES,"  SECRETARY  OF  THE 

SPECIAL  COMMISSION  ON  THE  IMPROVEMENT  OF  THE 

NAVIGATION  OF  THE  CHICAGO  RIVER 


CHICAGO 

THE    LAKESIDE    PRESS 
1901 


COPYRIGHT,  1901 
BY  GEORGE  G.  TUNELL 

C«. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

I.    STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  POSTAL  COM- 
MISSION. 

INTRODUCTION                -  13 
DIFFERENT  WAYS  IN  WHICH  MAIL  IS  CARRIED                -  14 
DIFFERENT  FORMS  OF  MAIL  PAY    *--  1$ 
FACTS  TO  BE  CONSIDERED  IN  FIXING  RATES  FOR  CAR- 
RIAGE OF  MAILS                             •                                                -  l8 

(COMPENSATION  NOT  EXCESSIVE  BECAUSE  THE  RAIL- 
ROADS COMPETE  FOR  THE  MAIL  TRAFFIC  IQ 

DECLINE  IN  THE  COMPENSATION  GRANTED        -  2O 

ARE  EXCESSIVE  PRICES  PAID  THE  RAILWAY  COM- 
PANIES? -  28 

DETAILED  COMPARISON  OF  MAIL  AND  EXPRESS  SER- 
VICE -  *  29 

THE  GOVERNMENT  DOES  NOT  PAY  FOR  ALL  THE 

WEIGHT  CARRIED  45 

CONCLUSION  -         47 

II.    THE  CHARGE  FOR  RAILWAY  MAIL  CARRIAGE. 

INTRODUCTION  51 

ORIGIN  OF  STATEMENTS  THAT  RAILROADS  RECEIVE 

EIGHT  CENTS  PER  POUND  -  -  52 

THESE  STATEMENTS  ARE  NOT  CONFIRMED  BY  THE 

POSTMASTERS-GENERAL  -  54 

DO  RAILROADS  RECEIVE  EIGHT  CENTS  PER  POUND 

FOR    CARRYING    MAIL    AN    AVERAGE    DISTANCE,  328 

MILES?  -  58 

THE  WEIGHT  OF  THE  MAIL  CARRIED  59 

AVERAGE  DISTANCE  MAIL  IS  CARRIED  -  64 

CONCLUSION  -  -  -i  -  72 

III.    A  VALUATION  OF  DATA. 

RESOLUTIONS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  BOARD  OF  TRADE     -          75 
MAIN  CONTENTION  OF  THE  RESOLUTIONS    -  76 

5 


)  CONTENTS 

PAGE 
AMOUNT  OF  MAIL  CARRIED  BY   RAILROADS   IN  A   YEAR      77 

VALUE  OF  THE  "WANAMAKER"  WEIGHING  78 

ACKER'S  STATEMENT  OF  THE  WEIGHT  OF  THE  MAIL 

CARRIED  -          82 

CORRECTED   ESTIMATE   OF  THE  WEIGHT  OF  THE    MAIL 

CARRIED      -  82 

AVERAGE  DISTANCE  MAIL  IS  CARRIED  -       85 

ACKER'S  COMPARISON  OF  MAIL,  FREIGHT  AND  PASSEN- 
GER EARNINGS  -  93 

ACKER'S  COMPARISON  OF  MAIL  AND  EXPRESS  EARN- 
INGS -  -  94 

PAY  FOR  POST-OFFICE  CARS  IOI 

WHY  SO  LITTLE  MAIL  CAN  BE  CARRIED  IN  A  POST- 
OFFICE  CAR  -  -  104 

DECLINE  OF  MAIL,  FREIGHT  AND  PASSENGER  RATES         IO6 

SHOULD  THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  SLIDING  SCALE  OF  PAY- 
MENTS BE  EXTENDED  -  109 

COMPARISON  OF  THE  RAILWAY  MAIL  AND  STAR-ROUTE 

SERVICE  AND  PAY  -  -  III 

CONCLUSION      -  Il8 

IV.    EXAMINATION  OF  THE  TESTIMONY   OF    PRO- 
FESSOR  HENRY  C.  ADAMS. 

INTRODUCTION        -  -        123 

REASONABLE  PAY  AND  COST  OF  SERVICE    -  123 

FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  RAILWAY  MAIL  PAY  -        12$ 

EUROPEAN  AND  CANADIAN  EXPERIENCE     -  126 
PROBLEM  OF  RAILWAY  MAIL  PAY  MUST  BE  APPROACHED 

AS  ONE  OF  COMPENSATION      -  -        13! 

PRINCIPLE  OF  PUBLIC  UTILITY  133 

ADAMS'S  THEORY  OF  PUBLIC  UTILITY  INCOMPLETE    -     137 
APPLICATION  OF  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  PUBLIC  UTILITY  139 

THIS  PRINCIPLE  WOULD  NOT  GREATLY  ALTER  EXIST- 
ING TARIFFS  -  -  141 

PASSENGER  EARNINGS  AND  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  PUBLIC 

UTILITY  -  142 

ON  WHAT  ARTICLES  SHOULD  RATES  DECLINE  MOST 

RAPIDLY?  -  150 

LENGTH    OF    HAUL   WHERE    PROFIT    TURNS    INTO    LOSS    I$2 

MAIL  TRAFFIC  IS  NOT  UNIFORM          -  I$5 


CONTENTS  7 

PAGE 

EAST  AND  WEST  BOUND  MOVEMENT  COMPARED  -       159 

COST  OF  HIGH-SPEED  TRAINS  l6o 

EARNINGS  FROM  MAIL  AND  EXPRESS      -  -        l68 

CONCLUSION      -  175 

V.    A  REVIEW  OF  "A  GENERAL  FREIGHT  AND  PAS- 
SENGER POST"  -     177 

THE     PRINCIPLE     UPON     WHICH     POSTAL     RATES     ARE 

BASED  179 

VI.    A  REVIEW  OF  "THE  POSTAL  DEFICIT"  -     191 

WHO  PAYS  THE  POSTAL  TAXES?          -  194 

VII.     STATISTICAL  APPENDIX. 

WEIGHT  OF  MAIL  BY  CLASSES      -  -        199 

WEIGHT  BY  CLASSES  OF  MAIL  SENT  TO   RAILROADS  2OO 

WEIGHT  OF  FREE  AND  PAID  MAIL  -       2OO 

WEIGHT    OF    FREE    AND    PAID    MAIL    SENT    TO     RAIL- 
ROADS 201 
ESTIMATE    OF     MAIL     ORIGINATING     IN     THE     UNITED 
STATES    IN    ONE    YEAR    AND    THAT    SENT   TO    RAIL- 
ROADS   -                                                                                            -       201 
MAXIMUM  RATES   FOR  TRANSPORTATION  OF  MAIL  2O2 
PAYMENTS  FOR  POST-OFFICE  CARS                                   -  2O2 
RATES  PER  TON  OF  MAIL  AND  PER  MILE  OF  TRACK     -       203 
MAIL  COMPENSATION  AND   SERVICE,  1873  TO  1898        -       2O4 
MAIL   TRAFFIC    AND   PAY    CLASSIFIED   ACCORDING   TO 

RATES  OF  PAYMENT  2O$ 

POST-OFFICE    EXPENDITURES    FOR     TRANSPORTATION, 

1870  TO  1898       -  -       2O6 

QUANTITY  OF  MAIL,  FREIGHT  AND  PASSENGER  TRAF- 
FIC IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  1873  to  l898  2O7 
MAIL,  FREIGHT  AND  PASSENGER  EARNINGS   IN  UNITED 

STATES,  1873  TO  1898  -  -  —  -       208 


INDEX     -  -  -  -  209 


PREFACE 

The  articles  brought  together  to  form  this  volume 
have  been  published  from  time  to  time  during  the  past 
three  years,  most  of  them  appearing  in  the  Journal  of 
Political  Economy.  Their  publication  now  in  more  con- 
venient form  is  due  to  the  continued  demand  for  them. 
Although  nominally  disconnected  I  believe  they  will 
not  be  found  to  be  wholly  wanting  in  continuity.  The 
occasion  that  called  them  forth  has  passed  but  I  hope 
they  contain  sufficient  material  of  more  than  ephemeral 
value  to  be  worthy  of  the  more  permanent  form  in 
which  they  now  appear. 

No  alteration  of  any  importance  has  been  made  in 
the  text,  but  some  new  matter  has  been  added.  It  is 
believed  the  tables  in  the  appendix  contain  the  most 
useful  of  the  voluminous  statistical  matter  prepared  for 
the  Joint  Congressional  Commission  on  Postal  Affairs 
created  by  the  act  of  Congress  approved  June  13,  1898. 
In  reprinting  these  statistics  I  assume  no  responsibility 
for  their  accuracy. 

G.  G.  T. 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS, 
March  18,  1901. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  TO  THE 
POSTAL  COMMISSION 


RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  JOINT  CON- 
GRESSIONAL COMMISSION  ON 
POSTAL  AFFAIRS1 

It  has  been  contended  with  such  persistence  that  many 
believe  it  to  be  true,  that  the  railroads  receive  excessive 
compensation  for  carrying  the  mails.  Statements  of  the 
services  rendered  and  of  the  pay  received  have  been 
wide  of  the  truth;  in  fact,  this  departure  has  generally 
been  so  palpable  it  was  believed  these  misrepresentations 
carried  with  them  their  own  condemnation,  and  thus  no 
formal  refutation  was  necessary.  Recently,  however, 
these  attacks  have  been  renewed,  and  have  appeared  in 
periodicals  of  such  high  standing  as  to  give  them  cre- 
dence, especially  as  the  railroads  have  made  no  replies 
which  have  gained  more  than  a  limited  circulation.  This 
being  the  situation,  the  appointment  of  this  Commission 
was  welcomed  by  the  Chicago  and  North-Western  Rail- 
way Company.  It  was  believed  that  the  railroads  would 
be  given  an  impartial  hearing,  and  that  they  could  fur- 

1  This  argument  was  presented  in  Chicago  on  November  21, 
1898.  Since  then  it  has  been  largely  reproduced  by  different  persons, 
but  proper  acknowledgment  has  seldom  been  made.  Professor  H.  T. 
Newcomb,  in  compiling  his  work  entitled  The  Postal  Deficit,  drew 
upon  it  freely.  Attention  will  later  be  directed  to  a  few  of  these 
appropriations. 

13 


1 4  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

nish  such  evidence  that  the  finding  of  the  Commission 
would  do  far  more,  than  they  could  hope  to  do  directly, 
to  convince  the  people  that  the  railroads  were  not  receiv- 
ing excessive  compensation  for  the  services  they  rendered. 
Realizing  the  importance,  not  only  to  ourselves  but  to  the 
community  as  well,  of  the  report  you  will  lay  before 
Congress,  we  have  sought  to  make  our  statement  as  full 
as  circumstances  permitted. 

Before  considering  the  question  whether  or  not  the 
railways  receive  excessive  pay  for  carrying  the  mail,  it 
will  probably  be  helpful  to  state  the  different  ways  in 
which  mail  is  carried,  and  the  forms  and  rates  of  com- 
/  pensation.  There  are  two  forms  of  service — (i)  the  pouch 
(or  closed  mail)  service  and  (2)  the  apartment  and  railway 
post-office  car  service.  The  distinction  turns  upon  the 
place  where  the  mail  is  separated.  In  the  service  of  the 
first  kind  the  mail  is  distributed  in  stationary  post-offices 
of  the  cities  along  the  route  and  is  hauled  in  baggage 
cars  in  closed  pouches.  In  the  service  of  the  second 
kind,  which  has  steadily  supplanted  that  of  the  first,  the 
mail  is  separated  after  it  reaches  the  cars.  In  this  change 
in  the  place  of  separation  we  have  the  most  important 
departure  that  has  been  made  in  the  handling  of  mail 
since  the  postal  service  was  inaugurated  on  the  railroads. 
This  innovation  has  contributed  more  to  the  expeditious 
delivery  of  mail  than  all  the  other  improvements  in  the 
Post-Office  Department  combined.  The  public  knows 
the  benefits  it  derives  from  separation  in  the  cars,  but  it 
is  not  aware  of  the  additional  cost  that  this  entails  upon 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  15 

the  railways.  It  necessitates  the  car  being  fitted  up  with 
every  convenience  that  will  facilitate  assortment.  Much 
more  important,  however,  than  the  equipment  of  the  cars 
is  the  extra  car  space  which  must  be  provided  for  a  given 
weight  of  mail.  As  the  mail  clerks  must  have  room 
enough  to  work  effectively,  the  storage  space  of  the  cars 
is  greatly  reduced.  Mr.  W.  S.  Shallenberger,  Second 
Assistant  Postmaster-General,  recently  stated  that  two- 
thirds  of  the  car  space  are  occupied  by  racks,  cases,  tables, 
and  other  conveniences  of  separation.1 

Corresponding  to  these  two  forms  of  service  are  two 
forms  of  pay.2  In  early  days  the  mail  was  carried  in 
closed  pouches  in  baggage  cars,  and  the  compensation 
was  based  almost  solely  upon  weight.  A  single  form  of 
payment  continued  for  some  years  after  the  railway  post- 
offices  were  introduced,  but  Congress  finally  recognized 
the  justice  of  the  contentions  of  the  railways  and  allowed 
those  carrying  the  mails  in  postal  cars  additional  pay  for 
the  extra  service  rendered  in  providing  sufficient  space 
for  the  distribution  of  the  mails  in  transit.8 

1 55th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Senate  Rpt.,  No.  991,  p.  120. 

2  There  is  still  another  form  of  pay,  known  as  "  special  facility 
pay,"  which  is  received  by  a  few  railroads  for  "special "  service. 

3  This  statement  is  only  in  part  true.     No  extra  pay  is  allowed"! 
for  apartment  car  service,  and  this  in  face  of  the  fact  that  the  mail  is  f 
sejjaj^edjjuite  as  minutely  in  the  apartment  as  in  the  exclusive  mail 
cars.'    The   disproportion  between   the  space  used  and  the  weight 
carried,  it  is  safe  to  say,  is  as  great  in  the  former  as  in  the  latter.     If 
a  test  were  made  it  would  probably  be  found  to  be  much  greater, 
because  the  space  required  for  separation  does  not  increase  so  rapidly 
as  the  weight.     It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  apartments  up  to 
forty  feet  in  length,  devoted  exclusively  to  mail,  should  not  be  paid 
for  while  cars  forty  feet  or  more  in  length  are  paid  for.    The  dis- 
crimination has  no  logical  basis;  it  is  wholly  arbitrary. 


i6 


RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 


The  present  plan  of  paying  the  railroads  on  the  basis 
of  weight  and  cars  furnished  was  established  by  the  act 
of  March  3,  1873.  The  amount  of  compensation  based 
on  the  weight  carried  has,  however,  been  twice  reduced — 
10  per  cent  by  the  act  of  July  12,  1876,  and  5  per  cent 
by  the  act  of  June  17,  1878.  In  addition  to  these  reduc- 
tions the  compensation  of  land  grant  railroads  was  reduced 
20  per  cent  below  that  of  other  railways  by  the  act  of 
July  12,  1876.  The  maximum  rates  now  paid  on  the 
basis  of  weight  carried  are  shown  in  the  subjoined  table: 

RATES  BASED  ON  THE  WEIGHT  OF  THE  MAILS.1 


i^\     Average  Daily  Weight  of  Mails  over 
(                               Whole  Route. 

Present  Pay 
per  Mile 
per  Annum. 

Present  Rate 
per  Ton 
per  Mile.9 

200  pounds 

$42  71 

Si  171 

CQO      " 

64  12 

7O2 

1000        "                            -              -       — 

8?  co 

468 

moo      " 

106.87 

2OOO        " 

128  25 

7CT 

^;oo      " 

140  62 

?\/l 

5000      " 

171  oo 

187 

Each  2000  pounds  in  excess  of  5000  pounds 

.058 

The  most  striking  feature  of  this  table  is  the  rapid  decline 
in  the  rates  paid  with  an  increase  of  weight. 

In  addition  to  the  above  payments  based  upon  weight 
there  is  a  further  allowance  when  full-sized  railway  post- 
office  cars  are  provided — the  Post-Office  Department 

1  Land  grant  roads  receive  but  80  per  cent  of  these  rates. 

2  This  is  the  rate  received  for  carrying  each  ton  handled  one 
mile,  and  is  obtained  by  dividing  the  yearly  compensation  by  365 
and  then  dividing  the  daily  compensation  thus  obtained  by  the  num- 
ber of  tons  carried  one  mile  each  day. 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  17 

deciding  when  these  are  necessary.     The  rates  of  pay 
for  these  cars  are  as  follows: 

RATES  ALLOWABLE  FOR  FULL-SIZED 
POST-OFFICE  CARS.1 


Length  of  Car. 

Rate  per 
Annum  per 
Mile  of  Track. 

Rate  per 
Mile  Run  by 
Cars. 

40  feet  --   -     -  

$25.00 

7.4.24.  cents 

AC          " 

id.  IOO         " 

'to         
co    " 

"iOOO 

OC  4,70        " 

55  to  60  feet                                  

CO             - 

6  8do      " 

fnEJ 

The  first  column,  which  shows  the  rate  paid  per 
annum  per  mile  of  track,  is  likely  to  be  misunderstood. 
The  compensation  seems  very  liberal,  and  it  would  be  so 
in  fact  if  it  were  as  large  as  it  appears  to  be.  To  gain 
$25  per  mile  per  annum  a  forty-foot  car  must  make  a 
round  trip  over  each  mile  of  road  per  day.  If  it  only 
makes  one  trip  over  the  road  each  day  it  will  earn  but 
$12.50  per  mile  per  annum,  as  it  would  be  but  half  of 
what  is  known  as  a  "line."  The  statute  of  March  3, 
1873,  reads:  "That  .  .  .  pay  may  be  allowed  for  every 
line  comprising  a  daily  trip  each  way  of  railway  post-office 
cars,  at  a  rate  not  exceeding  $25  per  mile  per  annum  for 
cars  forty  feet  in  length.  .  .  .  ' 

It  is  often  urged  that  the  railroads  should  be  paid  no 
more  for  the  use  of  post-office  cars  than  the  cost  of  main- 
taining and  caring  for  them  and  a  fair  return  upon  their 

1  By  full-sized  cars  is  meant  cars  forty  feet  or  more  in  length  and 
wholly  devoted  to  mail. 


1 8  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

original  cost.  Such  payment  would  be  just  if  they  were 
stationary  post-offices  and  the  Government  provided 
trackage  for  them.  But  they  are  not  stationary  post- 
offices,  and  the  compensation  received  for  them  must  be 
regarded  as  in  part  a  payment  for  hauling  them  with  their 
load  and  the  railway  postal  clerks  in  them.  It  was  so 
considered  when  it  was  first  granted.  This  additional 
compensation  was  made  because  Congress  recognized  that 
the  separation  of  the  mail  in  the  cars  necessitated  the 
devotion  of  an  unusual  amount  of  car  space  to  a  given 
weight  of  mail.  On  this  point,  speaking  for  the  sub- 
committee  of  the  Select  Committee  on  Transportation 
Routes  to  the  Seaboard,  which  was  investigating  the 
transportion  of  mail,  Senator  Mitchell  said,  "Soon  after 
the  establishment  of  the  post-office  car  service  it  became 
evident  that  the  law  of  1845,  under  which  the  payment 
to  railroads  for  carrying  the  mail  was  based  upon  weight, 
did  not  provide  for  the  post-office  car  service,  the  space 
occupied,  instead  of  the  weight  carried,  being  the  proper 
measure  of  the  value  of  that  service."  l  In  other  words, 
it  was  conceded  by  this  committee  that  a  wholly  dispro- 
portionate amount  of  dead  weight  in  the  form  of  a  car 
with  its  fittings  was  hauled  for  a  given  weight  of  mail. 

When  it  is  remembered  what  the  Government  demands 
from  the  railroads  in  the  way  of  service  the  contention 
that  the  compensation  should  be  very  low  is  astonishing 
in  extreme.  The  Government  insists  that  the  mail  trains 

1  43d  Cong.,  ist  Sess.,  Senate  Rpt.  478,  p.  8.  The  italics  appear 
in  the  report. 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  19 

must  be  given  the  right  of  way  over  all  other  trains;  the   : 
Government  insists  that  the  mail  must  go  on  the  fastest 
trains;  the  Government  insists  that  the  mail  must  be  car- 
ried upon  any  train  the  Post-Office  Department  may  select; 
the  Government  insists  that  no  mail  may  ever  be_Jeft  „ 
behind  and  that  the  railroads  must  always  furnish  suffi- 
cient  car  space  regardless  of  the  suddenness  or  unusual- 
ness  of  the  demand  that  may  be  made;  the  Government 
insists  that  the  mail   cars    must  be  furnished  with  the__. 
best  appliances  that  art  and  science  afford;  the  Govern- 
ment insists  that  the  mail  cars  must  be  stationed  where 

— . ^ 

they  can  be  easily  and  conveniently  approached;  the 
Government  insists  that  the  railroad  carry  the  mails  under 
certain  conditions  between  its  stations  and  the  post_ 
offices,  and  finally,  the  Government  insists  that  railroad 
employes  give  the  mail  their  first  attention  on  arrival  of 
trains.1  Thus  at  every  point  the  Government  says  th< 
mail  must  be  given  preference  over  all  other  traffic. 
These  facts  should  not  be  overlooked  in  passing  judgment 
on  the  reasonableness  of  the  mail  pay.  They  stamp  as 
unreasonable  the  contention  that  the  rates  should  be 
unusually  low. 

In  answer  to  the  statement  that  there  must  be  a  large 
profit  in  the  mail  traffic  because  the  railroads  compete  for 
this  business,  it  may  be  stated  that  railroads  often  com- 
pete for  traffic  that  yields  far  from  excessive  returns. 

1  This  summary  of  the  demands  of  the  Government  has  been 
frequently  repeated,  and  is  reprinted  almost  verbatim,  but  no  credit 
given,  by  Professor  H.  T.  Newcomb,  on  page  60  of  his  work  just  pub- 
lished, entitled  The  Postal  Deficit. 


20  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

They  strive  for  traffic  that  will  not  yield  any  return  upon 
the  fixed  capital  invested  in  the  railroad.  They  contend 
for  traffic  that  will  not  even  pay  its  proportion  of  the 
operating  expenses  of  the  railroad.  Now,  if  railroads 
compete  for  traffic  at  rates  that  do  not  even  equal  the 
average  cost  of  movement,  and  any  well-informed  per- 
son will  concede  that  they  do,  the  argument  that  the 
mere  fact  that  the  railroads  compete  for  the  mail  business 
proves  that  the  pay  is  excessive,  falls  to  the  ground. 

The  present  basis  of  compensating  the  railways  for 
carrying  the  mails  was  established  by  the  act  of  March 
3,  1873.  The  rates  then  fixed  were  shortly  afterward 
twice  reduced,  10  per  cent  by  the  act  of  July  12,  1876, 
and  5  per  cent  by  the  act  of  June  17,  1878.  By  the 
former  of  these  two  acts  the  compensation  of  land  grant 
roads  was  further  reduced  20  per  cent  below  that  of  other 
railways.  As  the  last  reduction  was  made  in  1878,  there 
has  been  no  reduction  in  the  basis  of  compensation 
by  new  legislation  in  more  than  twenty  years.  Freight 
and  passenger  rates,  and  prices  in  general,  have  fallen 
during  this  interval,  and  it  is  now  often  stated  that  Con- 
gress ought,  therefore,  to  cut  down  the  mail  pay.  There 
is  no  reason,  it  is  contended,  why  mail  earnings  should 
not  have  gone  down  hand  in  hand  with  freight  and  pas- 
senger earnings.  If  the  mail  pay  was  fair  in  1878  and 
the  character  of  the  mail  service  has  not  improved  more 
rapidly  than  the  freight,  express,  and  passenger  service, 
this  position  would  appear  to  be  well  taken.  But  these 
assumptions  are  not  in  consonance  with  the  facts.  The 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  21 

rates  established  by  the  act  of  1873  were  accepted  with 
great  reluctance.  After  the  reductions  of  1876  and  1878 
they  were  so  far  from  remunerative  that  the  railways  were 
forced  to  curtail  the  service  rendered,  and  were  obliged 
to  remove  all  trains  run  primarily  to  expedite  the  mails.1 
Then,  too,  there  has  been  no  other  service  that  has  been 
improved  so  rapidly  as  the  mail  service,  both  in  the  mat- 
ter of  speed  and  frequency.  In  1879  our  mail  trains 
between  Chicago  and  Council  Bluffs  averaged  but  twenty- 
two  miles  per  hour,  while  they  now  average  thirty-five 
miles  per  hour;  our  trains  then  made  but  12.49  trips  per 
week  over  this  route,  while  they  now  make  42.28  trips 
per  week.2  The  railroads  have  shown  themselves  willing 
to  co-operate  with  the  Post-Office  Department  in  improv- 
ing the  mail  service.  No  reasonable  request  has  been 
refused  by  the  railroads.  In  1875,  Postmaster-General 
Jewell  said  the  railroads  "are  offering  all  the  facilities  at 

1Mr.  J.  S.  Tynor,  Postmaster-General,  said  in  referring  to  the 
removal  of  the  fast  mail  trains  after  the  reduction  of  1876:  "  It  was 
claimed  by  the  railroad  companies  at  the  organization  of  this  expedited 
distribution  system  that  the  rates  of  pay  then  provided  by  the  existing 
law  were  insufficient  to  compensate  them  for  the  extraordinary  ex- 
pense incurred  in  running  trains  at  such  a  speed,  and  there  is  good 
reason  to  believe  that  they  offered  their  trains  to  the  department  as 
an  experiment,  out  of  a  spirit  of  enterprise  rather  than  an  expectation 
of  deriving  an  immediate  profit  therefrom." — Report  of  Postmaster- 
General,  1876,  p.  xxviii.  See,  also,  letter  to  the  Postmaster-General, 
discussing  the  question  of  compensation  to  the  railroads  for  the  trans- 
portation of  the  mails,  by  George  S.  Bangs,  General  Superintendent  of 
the  Railway  Mail  Service,  1874,  pages  26  and  30;  also,  the  letter  of 
Postmaster-General  Creswell,  transmitting  the  report  of  Mr.  Bangs 
to  Mr.  John  B.  Packer,  chairman  of  the  committee  on  the  Post-Office 
and  Post  Roads  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  See,  also,  Senate 
Report  No.  478,  pp.  24  and  30,  43d  Congress,  ist  session,  and  a  chap- 
ter by  former  Postmaster-General  James  in  The  American  Railway, 
published  by  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  pp.  318-323. 

2  Report  of  Postmaster-General,  1879,  p.  132,  and  Ibid,  1899^.538. 


22  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

their  command,  and  in  a  manner  which  indicates  the 
utmost  cordiality  between  them  and  the  Government,  and 
every  disposition  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  Depart- 
ment."1 And  in  1893  Postmaster-General  Bissell  re- 
ported that  "so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  acquaint  myself 
with  the  details  associated  with  the  transportation  of  the 
mails  by  railroads,  I  am  impressed  favorably  with  the 
spirit  of  willingness  on  the  part  of  railroad  managers  to 
co-operate  with  the  Department  in  rendering  the  mail 
service  effective."  2 

The  railroads,  however,  do  not  rest  their  case  solely 
upon  the  improvements  they  have  introduced.  Although 
there  has  been  no  reduction  made  by  law  (or  accurately 
by  new  enactment)  since  1878,  the  compensation  given 
the  railroads  for  carrying  the  mail  has  fallen  very  rapidly. 
This  has  come  about  automatically  because  of  the  oper- 
ation of  the  sliding  scale  of  payments  introduced  by  the 
act  of  1873.  By  referring  to  the  table  on  page  16  it  will 
be  found  that  the  rate  of  compensation  granted  decreases 
rapidly  with  an  increase  of  weight.  It  will  be  noted 
that  the  pay  for  transporting  mail  on  roads  that  carry 
200  pounds  or  less  per  day  was  fixed  at  1 1 7  cents  per  ton 
per  mile,  while  that  for  carrying  mail  on  roads  that  trans- 
port more  than  5,000  pounds  per  day  was  fixed  at  but 
5.8  cents  for  every  ton  in  excess  of  5,000  pounds,  or  less 
than  ^  of  the  first  rate.  The  wholesale  principle  of 
fixing  prices  never  received  more  drastic  application. 

1  Ibid,  1875,  p.  xxvii. 

2  Ibid,  1893,  p.  xix. 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  23 

During  the  last  twenty  years  the  weight  of  mail  carried 
on  practically  all  routes  has  increased  rapidly.  This 
increase  of  weight,  >  through  the  operation  of  the  statute, 
has  automatically  brought  about  a  great  reduction  in  the 
rates  of  compensation.  Our  average  rate  of  earnings 
from  the  transportation  of  mail  has  fallen  very  much 
more  than  our  average  rate  of  earnings  from  passenger 
business,  and  almost  as  much  as  the  average  rate  received 
from  freight  business.  It  has  been  possible  to  reduce 
freight  rates  because  with  an  increase  of  business  we 
have  been  able  to  distribute  expenditures  which  increase 
slowly,  if  at  all,  with  an  increase  of  business,  but 
which  in  the  aggregate  form  a  very  large  portion 
of  our  expenditures,  over  a  much  larger  volume  of  busi- 
ness. It  thus  appears  that  the  cause  (*.  ^.,  the  increase) 
in  the  tonnage  which,  in  the  main,  explains  the  decline 
of  our  freight  rates,  has  also  brought  about  a  great 
reduction  in  the  average  rate  of  pay  received  for  mail 
transportation.  In  the  table  on  the  next  page  I  show 
how  our  mail  earning  per  ton  per  mile  have  fallen  with 
an  increase  of  tonnage. 

From  this  table  it  appears  that  our  ton-mile  earn- 
ings fell  46.80  per  cent,  from  1874  to  1897,  ancl  39-73 
per  cent,  from  1879  to  1897.  In  other  words,  from 
the  time  the  last  reduction  in  pay,  made  by  spe- 
cific act  of  Congress,  went  into  effect,  from  which  time 
it  is  popularly  supposed  no  reduction  in  mail  pay  has 
been  made,  our  average  rate  of  earnings  has  fallen  almost 
40  per  cent.  No  higher  tribute  than  this  could  be  paid 


24  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

MAIL   EARNINGS   PER   TON   PER    MILE.1 


Government  Fiscal  Year. 

Mileage  Involved. 

Earnings  per  Ton 
per  Mile. 

l874 

1,  857.Q 

Cents. 
26  07 

1876 

I,86l.7 

22.OQ 

1877   _ 

1,902.9 

2I.4O 

1878... 

1,989.2 

22.m 

1879 

2,096.6 

23  o  i 

-3,708.8 

21  78 

1800 

4.I7C.6 

IQ.O7 

1801;   _ 

4,818.9 

15.91 

1896- 

4,856.8 

1^.85 

1807 

4,8i;6.8 

1^87 

to  the  sagacity  and  foresight  of  the  men  who  introduced 
the  sliding  scale  into  the  act  of  1873. 

Since  1874,  but  more  particularly  since  1879,  we  have 
constructed  a  large  amount  of  mileage  in  the  Dakotas 
and  in  the  sparsely  settled  districts  of  northern  Wiscon- 
sin and  the  upper  peninsula  of  Michigan.  The  mail  on 
these  new  routes  is  very  light,  and  consequently  the  rate 
per  ton  per  mile  is  comparatively  high.  If  it  were  not 
for  the  introduction  of  this  new  mileage  into  our  system 
our  earnings  per  ton  per  mile  would  have  fallen  even 
more  rapidly  than  they  did.2  To  show  more  accurately 
how  the  sliding  scale  of  payment  works  automatically  to 
bring  about  a  reduction  in  the  average  rate  of  mail  pay, 

1  The  earnings  given  include  all  forms  of  payment,  and  no  deduc- 
tions whatever  have  been  made.    Eighteen  hundred  seventy-four  was 
made  the  starting  point  because  with  the  beginning  of  this  fiscal  year 
the  act  of  1873  went  into  operation.    The  data  from  which  this  table 
was  compiled  were  obtained  without  exception  from  the  annual  reports 
of  the  Postmaster-General. 

2  Some  idea  of  the  growth  of  our  system  may  be  obtained  from 
column  two  of  the  table  just  presented. 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION 


25 


our  earnings  on  two  routes  that  have  been  operated  dur- 
ing the  entire  period  will  be  introduced.  For  this  pur- 
pose the  Chicago-Milwaukee  and  the  Clinton-Anamosa 
routes  have  been  selected.  These  routes  are  typical  of 
the  heavy  and  light  routes. 

EARNINGS  PER  TON  PER  MILE  ON  TWO  MAIL  ROUTES.1 


CHICAGO-MILWAUKEE  ROUTE. 

CLINTON-ANAMOSA  ROUTE. 

Government  Fiscal 
Year. 

Earnings  per  Ton 
per  Mile. 

Government  Fiscal 
Year. 

Earnings  per  Ton 
per  Mile. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

1874 

33-34 

1874 

211 

1879 

29.61 

1879 

174 

1885 

16.10 

1885 

102 

1890 

14.50 

1890 

85 

1895 
1897 

12.54 
8.65 

1895 
I897 

69 

66 

By  the  table  just  presented  it  appears  that  our  ton- 
mile  earnings  on  the  Chicago-Milwaukee  route  fell  74.06 
per  cent,  from  1874  to  1897  and  70.79  per  cent,  from 
1879  to  1897,  and  that  our  ton-mile  earnings  on  the 
Clinton-Anamosa  route  fell  68.73  Per  cent,  from  1874  to 
1897  and  62.07  Per  cent-  from  I879  to  l897-  From 
these  percentages  it  may  be  inferred  what  the  reduction 
in  rates  would  have  been  if  we  had  added  no  new  mileage 
to  our  system  in  sparsely  settled  regions. 

It  has  been  shown  what  the  absolute  reductions  in  our 
mail  earnings  have  been.  Let  us  now  contrast  our  mail 
with  our  freight  and  passenger  earnings.  It  is  usually 

1The  data  used  in  obtaining  these  results  were  taken  without 
exception  from  the  annual  reports  of  the  Postmaster-General. 


26 


RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE 


believed    that  freight  and  passenger   rates   have   fallen 
much  more  rapidly  than  mail  rates. 

The  facts  for  our  system  are  disclosed  by  the  follow- 
ing table: 

FREIGHT,  MAIL  AND  PASSENGER  EARNINGS. 


Year. 

Freight. 
Average  Rate  per 
Ton  per  Mile. 

Mail. 
Average  Rate  per 
Ton  per  Mile. 

Passenger. 
Average  Rate  per 
Passenger  per  Mile. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

1874 

2.06 

26.07 

2.89 

1877 

1.75 

21.40 

2.72 

1879 

1.56 

23.01 

1885 

I.IQ 

21.78 

2.38 

1890 

.98 

19.07 

2.17 

1895 

I.I4 

15.91 

2.07 

1896 

1.03 

13.85 

2.05 

1897 

.99 

13.87 

2.04 

To  one  not  familiar  with  the  sliding  scale  upon  which 
mail  payments  are  based  the  facts  presented  in  this  table 
must  come  with  startling  force.  The  decline  stated  in 
percentages  for  the  whole  period  and  for  the  period  from 
1879,  when  the  last  reduction  by  specific  act  went  into 
effect,  to  1897,  is  shown  in  the  following  table: 


Period. 

Decline  of 
Freight 
Earnings. 

Decline  of 
Mail 
Earnings. 

Decline  of 
Passenger 
Earnings. 

Decline  from  1874  to 
Decline  from  1879  to 

1897-  — 
1897.— 

Per  cent. 
51.94 
36.54 

Per  cent. 
46.80 
39-73 

Per  cent. 
29.42 
26.85 

Two  points  brought  out  by  this  table  should  be  noted. 
The  average  rate  of  pay  received  for  transportation  of 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  27 

mail  has  fallen  almost  as  rapidly  during  the  entire  period 
as  has  the  rate  received  for  freight  service,  and  much 
more  rapidly  than  the  rate  received  from  passenger  traffic, 
with  which  it  is  more  comparable.  From  1879  to  1897, 
during  which  time  mail  pay  was  not  reduced  by  any  new 
act  of  legislation,  the  average  rate  received  for  mail  trans- 
portation fell  somewhat  faster  than  the  average  earnings 
received  from  freight  and  very  much  more  rapidly  than 
the  average  passenger  rate. 

On  the  basis  of  the  exhibit  from  1879  to  1897  ^  ls 
felt  that  it  can  be  confidently  asserted  that  the  mail  earn- 
ings per  ton  per  mile  of  all  the  railroads  of  the  United 
States  during  that  period  have  fallen  more  rapidly  than 
have  the  average  earnings  received  from  freight  and  pas- 
senger business.  This  being  the  case,  we  should  view  as 
a  grievous  hardship  any  recommendation  of  a  reduction  by 
this  Commission,  simply  because  there  has  been  no  recent 
reduction  by  new  legislation,  and  because  the  average 
rates  received  for  freight  and  passenger  transportation 
have  steadily  fallen.  We  respectfully  submit  that  a  care- 
ful investigation  should  first  be  made  into  the  relative 
decline  of  mail,  freight,  and  passenger  earnings.1  We 
do  not  accept  the  results  of  the  computations  that  the 
opponents  of  railroads  have  made.  For  reasons  that 
have  already  been  given,  and  for  others  that  will  come 

1  On  the  request  of  the  Commission,  this  investigation  was  later 
made  by  Professor  Henry  C.  Adams,  and  it  was  found  that  the  aver- 
age mail  rate  in  the  United  States  decreased  much  more  rapidly 
than  the  average  passenger  rate,  but  not  quite  so  rapidly  as  the  aver- 
age freight  rate — a  very  gratifying  verification  of  my  prediction. 


28  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

to  mind  if  a  detailed  examination  of  this  subject  be  made, 
we  cannot  accept  the  data  commonly  used. 

In  the  preceding  pages  we  have  clearly  shown  that 
the  railroads  should  not  be  asked  to  carry  the  mail  at 
unusually  low  rates,  and  that  the  average  rate  of  pay  for 
mail  service  has  steadily  fallen  during  the  past  twenty- 
five  years  in  common  with  rates  for  freight  and  passenger 
business.  Under  the  present  laws  governing  the  pay  for 
mail  transportation  the  average  rates  received  will  con- 
tinue to  decline  with  an  increase  in  the  volume  of  mail 
matter  transported.  It  now  remains  for  us  to  consider 
the  question  whether  the  rates  of  pay  for  mail  service 
under  existing  laws  are  excessive. 

In  the  absence  of  any  data  which  will  show  that  the 
pay  received  equals  only  the  cost  of  service  plus  a  fair 
profit — and  we  know  of  no  way  in  which  this  cost  can  be 
determined — the  answer  to  the  above  question  must  be 
sought  in  a  comparison  of  the  service  rendered  in  trans- 
porting mails,  and  the  pay  received  therefor,  with  other 
kinds  of  transportation  service  furnished  by  railroads. 
There  is  no  other  service  performed  by  railroads  wholly 
similar  in  character  to  that  of  mail  transportation.  There- 
fore, in  any  such  comparison,  due  allowance  must  be 
made  for  any  differences  that  may  exist  between  the 
respective  classes  of  service  under  consideration.  The 
kind  of  service  which  is  perhaps  nearest  like  the  trans- 
portation of  mails  is  the  express  service.  Although  there 
are  many  marked  differences  between  the  express  and 
mail  service,  we,  however,  submit  the  following  com- 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  29 

parison  of  these  two  classes  of  service,  believing  that 
such  a  comparison  will  clearly  prove  the  contention  that 
the  rates  received  by  railroads  for  mail  transportation 
under  existing  laws  are  not  excessive. 

It  is  often  urged  that  the  compensation  granted  rail- 
roads for  carrying  the  mail  should  be  reduced  because 
their  earnings  from  this  business  far  exceed  those  from 
the  carriage  of  express  matter.  We  have  here  an  attempt 
to  arrive  at  the  reasonableness  of  a  payment  by  compar- 
ing it  with  one  made  for  the  performance  of  another  ser- 
vice. Let  us  test  our  mail  earnings  on  this  basis.  This 
comparison  is  rendered  easy  because  the  fundamental 
principles  that  must  be  observed  have  been  well  estab- 
lished by  legislation  and  judicial  opinion.  In  the  second 
section  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  it  is  held  that  if 
any  common  carrier  shall  receive  from  any  person  a 
greater  or  less  compensation  than  it  receives  from  any 
other  person  for  doing  for  him  a  like  and  contemporaneous 
service  in  the  transportation  of  a  like  kind  of  traffic  under 
substantially  similar  circumstances  and  conditions,  such 
common  carrier  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  unjust  discrimi- 
nation. From  this  it  follows  that  those  who  insist  that 
the  railroads  are  unjustly  discriminating  between  the 
Government  and  the  express  companies  and  that  the  rail- 
roads should  obtain  no  more  from  the  transportation  of 
mail  than  they  do  from  express,  must  show  (i)  that  the 
matter  carried  for  the  Government  is  like  that  carried  for 
the  express  companies,  (2)  that  the  services  rendered  the 
Government  are  like  those  rendered  the  express  compa- 


30  RAIL  WA  r  MAIL  SER  VICE 

nies,  and  (3)  that  the  services  are  performed  under  sub- 
stantially similar  circumstances  and  conditions. 

It  is  believed  it  can  be  shown  to  the  complete  satis- 
faction of  this  Commission,  and  of  all  unbiased  persons, 
that  the  services  rendered  the  Government  and  the 
express  companies  differ  widely,  not  only  in  these  three 
important  particulars,  but  also  in  others,  and  that,  there- 
fore, there  may  be  a  difference  in  the  rate  received  per 
pound  or  per  ton  carried,  and  yet  there  be  no  unjust 
discrimination. 

Let  us  now  examine  these  two  forms  of  traffic  under 
the  heads  cited  above.  First,  is  the  matter  carried  for  the 
Government  like  that  carried  for  the  express  companies? 
This  is  a  very  important  consideration,  for  the  classifica- 
tion of  commodities  depends  upon  the  degree  of  similar- 
ity that  obtains,  and  rates  depend  upon  the  classification.1 
The  controlling  factors  in  determining  classification  are 
bulk,  weight,  and  value  of  the  articles  carried,  and  ease 
of  handling  and  risk  in  carriage.  On  the  basis  of  these 
considerations  it  must  be  conceded  at  once  that  mail 
would  rank  higher  in  a  classification  than  express  matter, 
and  therefore  might  legitimately  be  called  upon  to  pay 
a  higher  rate.  This  point  will  not  be  dwelt  upon  here, 
as  it  will  come  up  for  discussion  later  on. 

Under  the  second  head  the  question  was  raised  as 
to  whether  the  service  rendered  the  Government  is  like 

1  The  right  of  the  railroads  reasonably  to  classify  commodities 
will  not  be  discussed,  as  it  has  been  fully  recognized  by  unquestioned 
practice,  legislation,  the  decisions  of  the  highest  courts  and  the  de- 
cisions and  recommendations  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  31 

that  rendered  the  express  companies.  In  other  words, 
do  the  railroads  perform  more  or  less  service  for  the 
Government  than  they  perform  for  the  express  compa- 
nies? A  very  limited  investigation  of  this  point  will  show 
that  in  several  important  particulars  more  is  done  for  the 
Government  than  for  the  express  companies.  Before 
elaborating  the  point,  let  me  state  that  this  company  can- 
not admit  that  the  weight  carried  is  the  sole  criterion  of 
the  service  rendered  and  of  what  the  compensation  should 
be.  The  justice  of  the  fundamental  principle  here  con- 
tended for  is  so  fully  recognized  in  the  business  commu- 
nity, in  legislation,  in  judicial  opinion,  in  the  decisions 
of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  and  by  all  the 
text  writers  on  transportation  that  it  seems  a  work  of 
supererogation  for  me  to  dwell  upon  it  here.  Yet  I  must 
do  so,  for  those  who  attack  the  railroads  proceed  as 
though  it  were  a  well-established  principle  that  weight 
alone  determines  railway  charges,  and  that  they  have 
simply  to  show  that  the  railways  receive  more  per  pound 
per  mile  for  transporting  mail  than  they  do  for  express, 
and  a  case  of  unjust  discrimination  is  made  out.  As  this, 
then,  is  the  situation,  the  differences  in  the  services  ren- 
dered the  Government  and  those  rendered  the  express 
companies  must  be  pointed  out  in  detail,  however  tedious 
this  may  be. 

It  is  a  well-established  practice,  and  its  justice  has 
never  been  questioned  seriously,  to  charge  higher  rates 
per  pound  on  articles  which  for  any  reason  require  an 
unusual  amount  of  car  space  in  proportion  to  their 


32  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

weight,  other  things  being  equal.  If  this  were  not  done, 
many  commodities  would  contribute  almost  nothing  to 
the  maintenance  of  the  railroads.  In  conformity  with 
this  practice  mail  should  pay  somewhat  higher  rates,  even, 
than  express  matter,  for  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
mail  is  heavy  in  proportion  to  its  bulk  when  compactly 
stowed  away,  it  occupies  an  unusually  large  amount  of 
car  space  as  it  is  now  transported.  Mr.  James  E.  White, 
General  Superintendent  of  the  Railway  Mail  Service, 
testified  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Appropriations 
on  the  22d  of  April,  1898,  that  "it  is  estimated  that  the 
average  weight  of  mail  carried  in  a  6o-foot  postal  car  is 
4,000  pounds  daily."  1  The  following  table  shows  the 
disproportion  in  the  space  allotted  by  the  Chicago  and 
North-Western  Railway  to  like  weights  of  mail  and 
express: 

AVERAGE  AMOUNT  OF  SPACE   DEVOTED  TO   MAIL 
AND  EXPRESS  DURING  1897. 


Commodity. 

Linear  Feet  of 
Floor  Space.2 

Express  per  ton  per  mile 

32  82 

Mail,  per  ton  per  mile  -       _              - 

-jc  13 

From  this  table  it  appears  that  for  every  ton  of  mail 
carried  one  mile  we  hauled  35.13  linear  feet  of  floor 
space  and  for  every  ton  of  express  but  32.82  feet  of  floor 

1  55th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Senate  Report,  991,  p.  133. 

2  By  linear  feet  is  meant  feet  measured  along  the  length  of  the 
car,  the  whole  width  being  included.     For  example,  15  linear  feet 
would  be  a  space  15  feet  long  and  the  entire  width  of  the  car. 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  33 

space.  In  other  words,  for  every  ton  of  mail  we  trans- 
ported one  mile  we  hauled  much  more  car  space  than  is 
contained  in  one  of  our  standard  box  cars.  The  dispro- 
portion in  the  dead  weight  moved  compared  with  the 
paying  weight  is  even  greater  than  the  disparity  just 
shown.  Our  50-foot  mail  cars  weigh  50,800  pounds,1 
while  our  50-foot  express  cars  weigh  but  45,600  pounds; 
thus  for  every  ton  of  mail  carried,  17.84  tons  of  dead 
weight  in  the  form  of  a  car  were  hauled,  while  for  every 
ton  of  express  but  14.96  tons  of  dead  weight  were  hauled. 

It  may  not  be  going  too  far  afield  to  explain  very 
briefly  why  mail  requires  so  much  space,  notwithstanding 
a  great  amount  of  weight  can  be  put  away  in  a  small 
compass.  It  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  work  formerly 
done  in  the  post-offices  proper  is  now  almost  wholly  done 
in  the  railway  post-office  cars.  The  work  of  separation 
is  now  performed  in  quarters  provided  by  the  railways 
instead  of  in  quarters  provided  by  the  Government.  The 
separation  is  done  in  the  cars  to  expedite  the  mails,  and 
is  so  effective  that  a  letter  now  reaches  its  destination  as 
quickly  as  a  passenger  starting  from  the  same  place  at  the 
same  time.  The  long  delays  in  what  were  known  as  the 
distributing  post-offices  are  now  wholly  obviated.  The 
shifting  of  the  place  of  separation  has  gone  so  far  that 
on  all  routes  of  any  importance  the  mail  is  separated  in 
cars  or  apartments  of  cars,  and  on  the  important  routes 
the  mail  is  not  only  distributed  for  the  cities,  but  in  many 
cases  it  is  actually  made  ready  for  the  carriers  and  sub- 

1  These  cars  are  much  lighter  than  those  we  are  now  constructing. 


34  RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 

stations  of  these  cities.  But  the  end  has  not  even  yet 
been  reached,  for  the  Postmaster-General  recently  said: 
"It  is  the  intention  eventually  to  absorb  all  the  work  of 
city  distribution  into  the  railway  mail  service  whenever 
the  mails  can  be  expedited  thereby."  1  It  is  this  minute 
separation  in  the  cars  that  requires  so  much  space.  The 
clerks  must  have  room  enough  to  work  effectively.  Some 
idea  of  the  space  required  may  be  inferred  when  it  is 
known  that  on  the  arrival  of  the  great  mail  trains  in 
Chicago  in  the  morning  the  letter  mail  for  the  business 
portion  of  the  city 2  is  actually  ready  for  the  carriers,  and 
the  letters  for  the  remainder  of  the  city  are  sorted  and 
ready  to  go  at  once  to  their  respective  stations.  Chicago 
alone  thus  requires  about  175  separations,  this  means 
sufficient  space  to  hang  up  175  pouches  with  their  mouths 
wide  open  so  that  the  mail  can  easily  be  thrown  into 
them.3 

As  would  be  inferred,  this  removal  of  work  from  the 
stationary  post-offices  provided  by  the  Government  to 
the  traveling  post-offices  supplied  by  the  railways  has 
been  a  great  economy  to  the  Government. 

As  early  as  1874,  Mr.  Bangs,  the  Government  Super- 
intendent of  Railway  Postal  Service,  in  a  statement  made 

1  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1895,  p.  398. 

2  In  this  district  is  included  all  that  portion  of  Chicago  that  is 
bounded  on  the  north  by  Chicago  Avenue,  on  the  east  by  the  lake,  on 
the  south  by  Twelfth  Street,  and  on  the  west  by  Halsted  Street. 

'This  description  and  illustration  of  the  amount  of  car  space 
required  in  the  distribution  of  mail  has  been  adopted  by  many  others 
who  have  written  upon  this  subject,  and  notwithstanding  they  have 
often  quoted  literally,  no  credit  has  been  given.  In  substance  it  may 
be  found  in  The  Postal  Deficit,  page  42,  et  seq. 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  35 

to  the  select  committee  of  the  Senate  then  investigating  v|^ 
the  payment  made  the  railways  for  carrying  the  mail, 
said  that  "the  effect  of  the  trunk  lines  suspending  the 
running  of  postal  cars  would  be  to  force  the  Government 
in  the  city  of  New  York  to  hire  three  or  four  large  ware- 
houses to  do  the  mail  distribution  that  they  now  do  upon 
the  railway  trains."  1  While  Mr.  Davis,  Assistant  Super- 
intendent of  the  Railway  Mail  Service  of  the  Post-Office 
Department,  testified  at  the  same  time  that  the  effect  of 
such  discontinuance  would  be  "to  throw  into  the  princi- 
pal post-offices  such  a  mass  of  matter  that  they  would 
have  no  accommodations  for  it.  With  the  limited 
accommodations  they  have  they  could  not  work  a  force 
sufficient  to  distribute  in  good  time.  It  would  involve 
a  very  annoying  delay."  2 

The  change  in  the  place  of  the  separation  of  the  mail 
introduced  still  other  differences  between  the  mail  and 
express  service  of  the  railroads.  Not  only  must  the 
railroads  haul  an  unusually  large  amount  of  car  space  to 
accommodate  the  mail,  but  they  must  also  transport  the 
large  number  of  clerks  required  to  separate  the  mails.  In 
addition  to  this,  they  are  obliged  to  station  the  railway 
post-offices  for  many  hours  before  the  trains  depart  at 
points  easily  accessible,  so  that  the  mail  can  be  conven- 
iently loaded.  In  opposition  to  the  first  point  raised> 
some  one  may  say  that  the  railways  also  carry  express 
messengers  in  the  express  cars,  and  therefore  this  point 

1 43d  Cong.,  ist  Sess.,  Senate  Rep.,  No.  478,  p.  12. 
2  Ibid,  p.  13. 


36  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

falls  to  the  ground.  While  it  is  admitted  that  express 
messengers  are  carried  as  well  as  railway  postal  clerks, 
the  force  of  the  first  point  is  not  lost,  for  we  never  carry 
more  than  one  express  messenger  in  a  car,  while  in  many 
of  our  mail  cars  we  carry  four  postal  clerks,  and  in  a  still 
larger  number  as  many  as  three,  and  on  the  average  haul 
two  and  three  to  the  car. 

As  the  mail  is  not  equal  in  volume  in  both  directions, 
some  mail  cars  are  regularly  returned  empty  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  company.  When  this  is  done  the  mail  clerks 
make  the  return  trip  free  in  passenger  cars.  The  express 
messengers  never  enjoy  this  privilege.  It  may  also  be 
stated  before  leaving  this  subject  that  the  number  of 
Government  officials,  other  than  the  clerks,  enjoying  free 
transportation  far  outnumber  the  officials  of  the  express 
company,  other  than  the  express  messengers,  who  are 
furnished  free  transportation.  Under  the  laws  and  the 
regulations  of  the  Postmaster-General,  we  are  obliged  to 
furnish  passes  to  "all  duly  accredited  agents  of  the 
Department  and  post-office  inspectors  upon  the  exhibition 
of  their  credentials."  These  officials  are  numerous,  while 
there  is  but  one  official  of  the  express  company  who  trav- 
els very  extensively.  It  is  somewhat  difficult  for  this 
company  to  understand  why  it  should  furnish  free  trans- 
portation to  officials  of  the  Post-Office  Department  whose 
duties  seem  to  be  wholly  divorced  from  the  transportation 
of  mail  on  its  line  of  road.  Concretely  stated,  why 
should  the  North-Western  Railway  Company  furnish  free 
transportation  in  its  passenger  cars  to  a  Government 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  37 

official  who  may  be  sent  from  Chicago  to  inspect,  say, 
the  post-office  building  of  Denver?  The  amount  of 
transportation  furnished  officials  of  the  Post-Office 
Department  on  the  Chicago  and  North-Western  Railway 
during  the  month  of  September,  1898  (the  only  period 
for  which  we  have  kept  an  account),  was  equal  to  the 
transportation  of  one  passenger  59,204  miles.  At  this 
rate  for  the  whole  year,  such  service,  which,  of  course, 
does  not  include  the  transportation  of  clerks  when  riding 
in  mail  cars,  would  amount  to  710,448  miles,  which  at  an 
average  rate  of  two  cents  per  mile  would  equal  the  very 
large  sum  of  $14, 208. 96. l 

Several  hours  before  the  postal  car  starts  on  its  jour- 
ney, and  in  one  case  twelve  hours  before  the  train  leaves, 
the  railway  post-offices  must  be  hauled  to  a  point  where 
the  mail  can  easily  be  taken  to  them  and  where  they  are 
readily  accessible  to  the  railway  post-office  clerks.  This 
is  required  because  long  before  the  train  starts  upon  its 
journey  the  mail  begins  to  arrive  and  the  clerks  com- 
mence their  work.  The  cars  cannot  be  stationed  at  a 
remote  point,  for  this  would  involve  delay  and  additional 
expense  to  the  Government  for  wagon  service,  or  would 
necessitate  loading  all  the  mail  into  the  cars  when  they 
are  brought  to  the  station.  The  latter  alternative  would 
defeat  the  very  end  for  which  the  railway  post-offices  are 
run;  the  clerks  would  be  swamped  if  all  the  mail  were 
thrown  upon  them  at  the  last  moment,  and  the  delay  in 

1  For  a  detailed  statement  of  the  miles  traveled  by  officers  and 
employes  of  the  Railway  Mail  Service  during  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1898,  see  Testimony  Part  I,  p.  445. 


38  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

forwarding  the  mail  would  probably  be  as  great  as  if  it 
were  held  and  distributed  in  the  stationary  post-offices. 
To  avoid  delays  in  delivering  the  mail  and  at  the  same 
time  to  keep  down  its  expense,  the  Post-Office  Depart- 
ment calls  upon  us  to  place  the  cars  near  our  central  sta- 
tions, and  this  we  do.  But  this  forces  us  to  devote  very 
valuable  land  to  the  use  of  the  Government.  The  express 
cars  are  stationed  in  our  outlying  yards,  and  are  not 
pushed  into  the  central  yard  until  just  a  few  minutes 
before  the  train  departs.  All  the  express  is  loaded  at 
the  last  moment,  and  this  must  be  done  quickly,  for  the 
train  will  not  be  held. 

Another  important  particular  in  which  the  service 
rendered  the  Government  differs  from  that  rendered  the 
express  company  is  the  handling  and  delivery  of  the 
articles  carried.  Express  matter  is  never  handled  either 
on  the  cars  or  at  the  stations  by  the  employes  of  the 
Chicago  and  North-Western  Railway  Company  unless 
specific  payment  is  made  for  such  work.  The  payment 
is  not  merely  a  nominal  one.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are 
required  by  law  and  the  orders  of  the  Postmaster-General 
to  perform  various  services  beyond  the  transportation  of 
mail  on  our  trains.  Our  employes  load  the  mail,  and  in 
case  there  is  no  postal  clerk  on  the  train,  they  also  put 
it  off  at  the  proper  place;  at  our  termini  they  must  unload 
the  mail  and  truck  it  to  the  wagons  or  transfer  it  from 
car  to  car  as  may  be  necessary.  When  time  to  make 
connections  is  limited  this  work  must  be  done  with  great 
dispatch,  and  therefore  a  larger  force  of  men  must  be 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  39 

employed  than  would  otherwise  be  necessary.  At  Chi- 
cago we  employ  eight  men  who  devote  all  their  time  to 
sorting,  loading,  and  transferring  mail.  At  connecting 
points  where  our  stations  are  not  more  than  eighty  rods 
from  those  of  the  connecting  company  we  are  required 
to  transfer  any  mail  we  may  have  to  the  connecting  trains 
or  deliver  it  to  the  agent  of  such  company.  We  must 
also  care  for  the  mail,  but  are  in  no  way  responsible  for 
the  express.  While  the  mail  is  at  our  stations  we  are 
responsible  for  it,  and  must  therefore  guard  it.  When 
a  train  departs  from  a  station  at  night  later  than  nine 
o'clock,  the  mail  may  be  delivered  to  our  agent  before 
this  hour,  and  he  must  keep  it  in  a  secure  place  until  the 
train  arrives  and  then  put  it  on  board.  Our  agents  must 
also  receive  the  mails  arriving  during  the  night  hours  and 
properly  care  for  them  until  the  post-office  opens  in  the 
morning.  We  are  required  to  take  the  mails  from  and 
deliver  them  into  all  terminal  post-offices,  whatever  may 
be  the  distance  between  the  station  and  the  post-office, 
except  in  cities  where  other  provision  for  such  service  is 
made  by  the  Department.1  We  are  also  required  to  take 
the  mails  from  and  deliver  them  into  all  the  intermediate 
post-offices  and  postal  stations  located  not  more  than 
eighty  rods  from  the  nearest  railway  station  at  which  the 
company  has  an  agent  or  other  representative.  Of  the 
761  stations  on  our  system,  we  deliver  the  mail  at  570 

1  In  all  cases  where  the  department  has  not  made  other  provision, 
the  distance  between  the  terminal  post-office  and  nearest  station  is 
computed  in  and  paid  for  as  a  part  of  the  route.  This  payment,  how- 
ever, does  not  begin  to  reimburse  us  for  the  cost  of  the  wagon  service. 


TTNIVERSITY 


40  RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE 

and  the  Government  at  191.  The  total  cost  to  the  Chi- 
cago and  North-Western  Railway  Company  of  handling 
the  mail  at  stations,  between  railroad  termini  and  between 
stations  and  the  post-offices,  is  almost  4  per  cent,  of  the 
total  compensation  received  for  carrying  the  mail  and 
furnishing  postal  cars.  Thus,  for  a  single  form  of  ser- 
vice that  is  wholly  distinct  from  the  transportation  of  the 
mail — which,  by  the  way,  is  the  only  service  we  are 
popularly  supposed  to  render — we  pay  out  on  one  hand 
almost  4  per  cent,  of  what  we  receive  from  the  Govern- 
ment on  the  other.  While  we  do  not  object  to  perform- 
ing work  about  our  stations  for  which  we  are  equipped, 
we  respectfully  submit  that  we  should  be  relieved  from 
the  duty  of  carrying  the  mail  between  our  stations  and 
post-offices.  This  is  a  relic  of  the  stage-coach  era  and 
is  now  an  anachronism.  It  involved  no  appreciable 
expense  for  the  stage-coach  to  deliver  the  mails,  for  it 
was  adapted  to  this  work,  but  to  the  railroads  it  means 
expense  and  trouble,  for  its  organization  and  equipment 
are  not  suited  to  such  work. 

The  services  we  render  the  Government  differ  from 
those  rendered  the  express  company  in  several  other 
particulars.  The  post-office  cars  are  of  more  expensive 
construction  and  it  costs  more  to  maintain  them  than  it 
does  express  cars.  The  mail  cars  are  well  cared  for  and 
are  fitted  up  with  racks,  hooks,  chairs,  closets,  tables, 
drawers,  washing  facilities,  sanitary  arrangements,  and 
generally  with  sleeping  accommodations  of  some  kind. 
They  are  constantly  supplied  with  ice-water  and  are 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  41 

equipped  with  the  best  lights  that  science  affords.  If 
they  are  not  supplied  with  Pintsch  gas  they  are  equipped 
with  six  acme  lamps  and  with  side  lamps  in  addition. 
During  six  months  of  the  year  many  of  the  mail  cars  are 
lighted  from  twelve  to  sixteen  hours  of  the  day.  This 
company  fully  recognizes  that  the  mail  cars  must  be  well 
equipped  and  furnished  with  the  best  lights  that  can  be 
procured,  for  we  well  know  that  the  service  required  of 
the  railway  mail  clerks  is  a  very  exacting  one.  All  we 
ask  is  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  we  make  unusual 
outlays  in  behalf  of  the  Government. 

In  addition  to  the  extra  expense  involved  in  fitting  up 
the  interior  of  the  mail  cars  is  the  expense  of  equipping 
the  cars  with  mail  catchers  for  taking  the  mail  bags  as 
the  trains  pass  through  the  stations.  To  co-operate  with 
the  catchers  on  the  cars  we  erect  mail  cranes  at  the 
stations.  The  latter  are  much  more  numerous  than  the 
former.  On  our  system  we  have  262  mail  cranes  and 
but  150  catchers. 

By  the  act  of  March  3,  1879,  the  Postmaster-General 
is  empowered  to  decide  upon  what  trains  the  mail  shall 
be  carried.  As  a  result  of  this  act  the  mails  gravitate 
toward  the  fastest  trains.  Sometimes  the  addition  of  a 
mail  car  to  a  limited  train  renders  it  very  difficult  for  a 
train  to  make  schedule  time  and  is  a  source  of  great 
expense.  The  express  company,  unlike  the  Government, 
cannot  dictate  the  trains  upon  which  express  matter  shall 
be  carried.  It  is  entirely  within  the  power  of  this  rail- 
way to  decide  upon  the  trains  which  shall  carry  this  traffic. 


42  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

It  was  stated  at  the  beginning  of  the  discussion 
of  our  mail  and  express  earnings  that  the  two  forms  of 
traffic  would  be  compared  from  the  three  standpoints 
fixed  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  for  determining 
unjust  discrimination  in  charges.  From  two  of  these 
standpoints  the  examination  has  now  been  made,  and  it 
has  been  shown  that  mail  matter  is  a  higher  form  of  traffic 
than  express  matter,  and  that  the  services  performed  for 
the  Government  exceed  those  performed  for  the  express 
company,  and  that  the  latter  makes  specific  compensation 
for  special  services,  while  the  former  never  does.  The 
two  forms  of  business  will  now  be  compared  from  the 
third  standpoint,  namely,  are  the  services  performed 
under  substantially  similar  circumstances  and  conditions. 
The  discussion  of  this  point  may  take  a  somewhat  wider 
range  than  was  contemplated  by  the  statute.  The 
express  company  pays  monthly,  while  the  Government 
pays  quarterly.  The  character  and  demands  of  the  mail 
service  are  such  that  the  mileage  the  mail  cars  make  is 
very  much  less  than  that  of  the  express  cars.  Mail  cars 
can  only  be  used  in  the  mail  service,  and  only  on  the 
particular  route  for  which  their  internal  arrangements  are 
designed.  Express  cars  can  be  used  as  baggage  cars, 
and  can  be  run  on  any  route,  as  they  have  no  fittings. 
/  The  principal  explanation,  however,  of  why  the  mail 
cars  do  not  equal  the  mileage  made  by  the  express 
cars  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  former  are  at  the 
terminals  a  much  larger  portion  of  the  time.  Mail 
cars  are  adapted  to  a  certain  run,  and  waiting  for  this 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  43 

run  in  some  cases  involves  a  loss  of  as  much  as  eighteen     X 
hours. 

The  services  rendered  the  Government  and  the  express 
company  by  the  Chicago  and  North-Western  Railway 
have  now  been  compared  at  length.  Before  leaving  this 
subject  the  results  of  this  comparison  will  be  presented 
in  narrow  compass.  I  shall  show  how  much  per  ton  per 
mile  we  received  for  carrying  mail  and  express  when  the 
services  are  reduced  as  far  as  possible  to  a  comparable 
basis.  A  comparison  of  ton-mile  earnings  presupposes 
substantial  similarity  in  the  services  rendered.  Until  a 
common  basis  has  been  reached,  comparisons  can  have 
no  value.  In  the  following  table  I  show  the  ton-mile 
earnings  from  mail  and  express: 

EARNINGS  PER   TON  PER  MILE  FROM  MAIL  AND    EXPRESS  ON  THE 
BASIS   STATED  ABOVE. 

Earnings  per  ton  per  mile  from  mail 12. 68  cents 

Earnings  per  ton  per  mile  from  express 11.27  cents 

r 

From  the  above  table  it  appears  that  on  the  average 
we  receive  1.41  cents  more  for  every  ton  of  mail  we  carry 
a  mile  than  we  do  for  express.  The  average  earnings 
per  ton  per  mile  from  mail,  as  shown  in  the  above  table, 
were,  however,  computed  on  the  basis  of  the  weight  of 
mail  we  were  paid  for,  and  such  weights  were  not  the 
weights  of  mail  carried  during  the  year  under  consider- 
ation, but  with  the  exception  of  a  few  minor  routes  were 
the  results  of  the  weighing  in  the  spring  of  1895.* 

1  This  feature  of  the  mail  service,  i.  e.t  the  Government's  failure 
to  pay  for  all  the  mail  carried,  is  treated  fully  in  the  succeeding  section. 


44  RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 

If  we  assume  that  the  mail  has  increased  in  weight  as 
rapidly  during  this  period  as  the  average  increase  of  the 
former  three  periods,  we  actually  carried  during  the  fiscal 
year  1897,  6.48  per  cent,  or  401,648  tons,  more  weight 
than  we  were  paid  for.  If  this  were  added  to  the  weight 
we  were  paid  for,  our  earnings  per  ton  per  mile  would 
have  been  but  11.91  cents,  instead  of  12.68  cents. 

When  the  differences  in  the  services  rendered  the 
Government  and  the  express  company  were  pointed  out 
in  detail,  it  was  stated  that  several  services  performed 
for  the  Government  were  of  such  a  nature  that  they  could 
not  be  presented  in  terms  of  dollars  and  cents.  In  mak- 
ing a  comparison  of  mail  and  express  earnings,  however, 
these  differences  must  be  kept  in  mind.  By  reference  to 
the  table  on  page  32  it  will  be  noticed  that  we  furnish 
more  linear  feet  of  floor  space  per  ton  of  mail  matter 
hauled  than  we  do  for  a  similar  weight  of  express,  the 
figures  being  35.13  feet  for  mail  and  32.82  feet  for  ex- 
press, an  excess  for  mail  of  7.04  per  cent.  If  space  fur- 
nished as  well  as  weight  hauled  be  considered  as  a  factor 
in  comparing  rates,  and  it  should  be  so  considered,  then 
the  rate  for  mail  service  should  for  this  reason  alone  be 
greater  than  that  received  for  express.  But  this  is  not 
all.  Mail  matter  would  rank  higher  in  classification  than 
express,  and  therefore  it  should  pay  higher  rates.  The 
number  of  Government  officials  transported  free  is  much 
larger  than  the  number  of  the  officials  of  the  express 
company  carried  without  compensation.  And  finally,  we 
render  the  Government  a  more  extensive  service  than  we 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  45 

render  the  express  company;  i.  e.,  our  fast  trains  take 
on  and  put  off  mail  at  more  points  than  they  do  express.     \ 
In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  respectfully  submitted  that 
these  additional  services  rendered  the  Government  far 
more  than  offset  the  slightly  larger  earnings  we  obtain    v/ 
from  the  mail.1 

As  is  well  known,  the  mail  tonnage  hauled  by  the 
railroads  is  not  ascertained  by  actually  weighing  the  mails 
for  the  entire  period  they  are  carried.  The  law  provides 
that  the  weight  of  the  mail  on  which  the  compensation  of 
the  railways  is  calculated  shall  be  ascertained  not  less 
often  than  once  in  four  years  by  actually  weighing  the  mails 
for  a  period  of  not  less  than  thirty  successive  working 
days.  In  practice  the  weighing  is  not  done  oftener  than 
the  law  commands,  or  once  in  four  years.  The  weight 
is  ascertained,  and  here  the  injustice  is  done,  several 
months  before  the  beginning  of  the  four-year  period  to 
which  it  applies,  and  no  corrections  made.2  Now,  as  is 
well  known,  the  volume  of  the  mail,  in  harmony  with 
other  business  and  the  growth  of  population,  increases 
by  leaps  and  bounds.  This  is  particularly  true  here  in 

1  Occasionally  it  is  contended  that  the  railroads  should  not  expect 
their  earnings  from  the  mail  service  to  equal  those  from  the  express 
service.     It  is  held  that  the  express  companies  are  given  a  monopoly,  fj) 
and  therefore  can  well  afford  to  pay  the  railroads  liberally,  as  they  -^(^ 
may  in  turn  hope  to  extort  monopoly  prices  from  the  public.    In  reply 
to  this  argument  it  may  be  stated  that  at  all  points  of  any  importance        ~    j. 


p 

the  express  companies  compete  with  each  other,  and  all  of  them  have 
to  meet  the  competition  of  the  mail  in  the  movement  of  light  pack- 
ages, and  of  the  railroads  themselves  in  the  transportation  of  heavier 
weights.  At  points  touched  by  but  a  single  railroad  the  express  com- 
panies have  to  meet  the  competition  of  the  mails  and  the  railroad. 

2  Professor  Newcomb's  discussion  of  this  subject  closely  follows 
the  lines  I  here  lay  down.     See  The  Postal  Deficit,  pp.  74-75- 


46 


RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 


the  Northwest.  As  a  result,  the  mail  carried  at  the  end 
of  the  four-year  period  greatly  exceeds  that  conveyed  at 
the  beginning  of  the  period.  In  the  subjoined  table  I 
show  the  percentages  by  which  the  weights  carried  in  the 
weighing  district1  in  which  we  are  located  increased  in 
twelve  years: 


Period. 

Per  Cent,  of 
Increase. 

1883-18872  —     „          _     _        - 

16  03 

i887~i89i3  _  __  —     - 

10.04. 

i8oi-i8o54  

16.78 

If  it  be  assumed  that  the  weight  this  company  carried 
increased  as  rapidly  as  the  weight  of  the  whole  region, 
then  for  the  whole  of  each  of  these  periods  we  carried  the 
following  percentage  of  our  paid  weights  without  com- 
pensation: 


Period. 

Percentage  of  the   Paid 
Weight  Carried   with- 
out Compensation   for 
the  Whole  Period. 

1883-1887  

8  OI 

1887-1801  — 

O  52 

1801-1801;-- 

VO-6 

8  10 

uoy 

During  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1895,  we  were 
paid  for  carrying  4,033,202  tons  of  mail  one  mile.     The 

1  For  weighing  purposes  the  whole  country  is  divided  into  four 
districts. 

2  Report  of  Postmaster-General,  1887,  p.  393. 
•Ibid.,  1891,  p.  339. 

4  Ibid.,  1895,  p.  164. 


STATEMENT  TO  POSTAL  COMMISSION  47 

quadrennial  weighing  which  took  place  in  the  spring  of 
1895  showed  that  we  really  carried  6,197,212  tons  one  ( 
mile.     In   other  words,   we   carried    50  per   cent  more 
weight  than  we  were  paid  for  transporting.1 

We  are  underpaid  because  of  another  practice  of  the 
Post-Office  Department.  The  Department  does  not  pay 
for  the  full  weight  which  it  is  ascertained  a  railway  car- 
ries. No  payment  is  made  for  an  intermediate  weight 
which  does  not  warrant  an  allowance  being  made  of  a 
dollar  per  mile.  To  take  a  concrete  case,  5,079  pounds 
of  mail  may  be  carried  over  a  route  daily,  but  compen- 
sation will  be  allowed  for  only  5,000  pounds,  as  79 
pounds  does  not  warrant  an  additional  allowance  of  one 
dollar  being  made.  If  another  pound  were  carried, 
another  dollar  would  be  granted.  It  is  needless  to  say 
that  on  a  system  of  numerous  routes  such  as  ours  these 
intermediate  weights  for  which  no  pay  is  given  amount 
to  a  large  tonnage  in  the  course  of  a  year. 

For  the  reasons  which  have  been  given,  the  weight 
actually  carried  by  the  railroads  considerably  exceeds 
that  paid  for.  At  the  beginning  of  the  four-year  period 
the  unpaid  weight  is  not  of  great  importance,  but  it 
steadily  increases,  and  probably  amounts  to  fully  20  per 
cent  of  the  paid  weight  by  the  end  of  this  period.  That 
they  should  be  forced  year  after  year  to  carry  much  more 
mail  than  they  are  paid  for,  the  railroads  cannot  but 
regard  as  a  grave  injustice. 

We  have  now  presented  such   information  as  in  our 

1  In  1894  we  greatly  improved  our  service. 


48  RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 

opinion  would  be  of  service  to  the  Commission.  And 
we  have  attempted  to  put  it  into  as  intelligible  a  form  as 
possible.  If  any  data  which  the  Commission  may  deem 
of  importance  have  been  omitted,  they  will  gladly  be 
supplied  if  another  opportunity  be  afforded  and  it  be 
possible  to  furnish  them.  As  we  have  not  been  informed 
as  to  the  lines  the  investigation  would  follow,  we  have 
been  thrown  back  upon  our  own  judgment  as  to  what 
facts  would  be  wanted.  It  was  thought  that  the  findings 
of  the  Commission  would  turn  upon  the  earnings  of  the 
railroads  from  mail  and  express  matter,  and  therefore 
this  comparison  was  given  the  most  attention.  The  ex- 
position of  our  mail  and  express  earnings  occupied  so 
much  space  that  other  points  could  not  be  fully  treated 
within  reasonable  compass.  Should  we  have  erred  in 
our  main  assumption,  it  is  hoped  an  opportunity  will  be 
given  for  a  fuller  treatment  of  the  neglected  points. 


THE  CHARGE  FOR  RAILWAY  MAIL 
CARRIAGE 


THE  CHARGE  FOR  RAILWAY  MAIL 
CARRIAGE.1 

In  no  year  since  1884  have  the  receipts  of  the  Post- 
Office  Department  equaled  its  expenditures.  In  recent 
years  the  annual  deficiencies  have  become  so  great  as  to 
engage  the  serious  attention  of  Congress  and  the  public. 
It  is  generally  held  that  as  the  Post-Office  Department 
is  nothing  more  than  a  business  institution  it  should  be 
self-sustaining.  The  plans  brought  forth  designed  to 
wipe  out  the  annual  deficits  fall  under  two  heads.  Most 
of  those  who  have  carefully  investigated  the  cause  of  the 
recurring  deficits,  notably  the  postmasters-general  and 
Mr.  Loud,  have  favored  the  curtailment  of  the  unusual 
privileges  enjoyed  by  second  class  mail  matter.  Another, 
and  perhaps  more  numerous  class,  would  put  an  end  to 
the  difficulties  of  the  Department  by  a  radical  reduction 
of  the  compensation  given  the  railroads  for  carrying  the 
mail. 

The  abuses  of  the  cent-a-pound  mailing  privilege  have 
been  repeatedly  set  forth  by  Mr.  Loud  and  the  post- 

1  This  chapter  was  written  in  the  spring  of  1898,  and  was  pub- 
lished in  the  spring  of  the  following  year,  appearing  in  the  March 
number  of  the  Journal  of  Political  Economy.  In  this  article  the 
accuracy  of  the  statistics  published  by  the  Post-Office  Department  was 
for  the  first  time  questioned.  The  exposure  which  followed  changed 
the  whole  character  of  the  railway  mail  pay  controversy,  and  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  statistics  that  were  later  compiled  for  the 
Postal  Commission  by  Professor  Henry  C.  Adams. 


5  2  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

masters-general,  and  therefore  need  not  be  given  again 
here.  Those  who  would  lop  off  a  third  or  a  half  of  the 
pay  given  the  railroads  contend  that  the  railroads  are 
receiving  eight  or  eight  and  one-half  cents  per  pound  for 
transporting  the  mail.1  This,  on  its  face,  is  regarded  as 
excessive.  Leaving  the  question  as  to  what  may  be 
considered  fair  compensation  for  later  discussion,  let 
us  attempt  to  discover  if  the  railroads  do  actually 
receive  eight  or  more  cents  per  pound  for  hauling  each 
pound  of  mail  passing  through  the  Post-Office  Depart- 
ment. 

This  statement  of  the  rate  of  compensation  has  been 
widely  accepted  because  it  has  been  quoted  as  coming 
from  the  postmasters-general  and  other  high  officials  of 
the  Government.  So  far  as  can  be  discovered,  it  has  no 
other  warrant  than  certain  announcements  of  the  post- 
masters-general and  certain  statements  in  a  report  of  the 
House  Committee  on  the  Post-Office  and  Post  Roads,  and 
a  statement  of  Mr.  Davis,  appearing  in  a  report  of  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Appropriations,  that  could  be  mis- 
understood. In  1894,  Postmaster-General  Bissell  said: 

The  total  weight  of  all  the  mail  matter  dispatched  in  the 
mails  of  the  United  States  during  the  year  ending  June  30, 
1894,  I  estimate  to  be  about  451,000,000  pounds.  .  .  .  The 
cost  of  carrying  all  this  matter  was  $36,207,572,  which  gives 
an  average  of  a  small  fraction  over  8  cents  a  pound.2 

1  Sometimes  they  state  the  average  number  of  miles  each  pound 
is  carried;  but  generally  nothing  is  said  about  the  length  of  the  haul. 
This  matter,  which  is  of  prime  importance,  is  often  neglected,  as 
though  it  were  of  absolutely  no  moment. 

2  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1894,  p.  33. 

4 


CHARGE  FOR  RAIL  WAT  MAIL  CARRIAGE  53 

In  1895,  Postmaster-General  Wilson,  in  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  great  loss  falling  upon  the  Department  because 
of  the  cent-a-pound  rate  of  postage  on  second-class  mat- 
ter, in  a  more  guarded  statement,  said:  "The  average 
cost  to  the  Department  of  transporting  and  handling  this 
matter  is  estimated  at  8  cents  per  pound."  l  In  1896, 
when  again  discussing  second-class  matter,  Mr.  Wilson 
stated  that  "the  mere  cost  of  transportation  of  this  mat- 
ter is  estimated  at  8  cents  a  pound. ' ' 2  And  in  the  same 
year  Mr.  Loud,  in  reporting  on  the  abuses  of  the  cent-a- 
pound  rate  of  postage,  stated,  in  behalf  of  the  Committee 
on  the  Post-Office  and  Post  Roads,  that: 

The  cost  of  transporting  and  handling  all  mail  matter 
averages  8^  cents  per  pound.  Fourth-class  matter  .  .  .  pays 
postage  at  the  rate  of  16  cents  per  pound,  which  is  about 
double  the  cost  of  transmission.  Third-class  matter  .  .  . 
pays  postage  at  the  rate  of  8  cents  per  pound — about  the  cost 
of  transmission.8 

While  discussing  the  growth  of  second-class  mail 
matter  in  1897,  Postmaster-General  Gary  said:  "The 
cost  to  the  Government  of  transmitting  the  365  million 
pounds  of  second-class  mail  matter  carried  during  the 
past  fiscal  year  [1897]  ls  estimated  at  29  million  dollars," 
or  about  8  cents  a  pound;  "the  postal  revenue  received 
from  it  is  estimated  at  three  million  dollars,  leaving  a  loss 
on  transportation  alone  of  26  million  dollars."  In  the 

1  Ibid.,  1895,  p.  31. 

2  Ibid.,  1896,  p.  7. 

'House  Report  No.  260,  pp.  1-2,  LIV  Congress,  first  session. 
4 Ibid.,  1897, p.  7. 


54  RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE 

spring  of  1898,  Mr.  Madison  Davis,  chief  clerk  of  the 
third  assistant  postmaster-general,  in  a  reply  to  a  request 
from  the  general  superintendent  of  the  railway  mail 
service,  wrote: 

I  send  you  the  following  estimate  of  the  average  cost  per 
pound  of  transporting  matter  in  the  mails  for  the  last  fiscal 
year.  The  total  weight  of  mail  matter  of  all  kinds  passing 
through  the  mails  during  the  year  is  estimated,  upon  the 
basis  of  an  accurate  calculation  made  in  1890,  to  have  been 
about  527,516,000  pounds.1  Dividing  this  total  expenditure 
[$42,186,975.78]  by  the  number  of  pounds  of  matter,  we  see 
that  the  average  cost  per  pound  is  about  eight  cents.2 

Let  us  now  examine  these  statements  to  see  if  they 
warrant  the  assertion  that  the  railroads  receive  on  the 
average  8  cents  per  pound  for  carrying  the  mail.  Let  us 
consider  them  seriatim.  Postmaster-General  Bissell,  in 
1894,  stated  that  he  estimated  the  total  weight  of  all  the 
mail  matter  dispatched  in  the  mails  of  the  United  States, 
during  the  year  ending  June  30,  1894,  to  be  about  451 
million  pounds.  The  cost  of  carrying  all  this  matter  was 
$36,207,572,  which  gives  an  average  of  a  small  fraction 
over  8  cents  a  pound.  Mr.  Bissell  does  not  say  that  the 
cost  of  transporting  this  matter  on  the  railroads  was 
$36,207,572,  or  8  cents  per  pound.  He  simply  states, 
without  specifying  the  manner,  that  the  cost  of  carrying 
this  matter  was  as  just  given.  By  referring  to  his  finan- 
cial statement  for  the  year,  it  will  be  found  that  but 

1  This  estimate  does  not  include  franked  matter. 

2  Senate  Report  No.  991,  p.  115,  LV  Congress,  second  session. 


CHARGE  FOR  RAILWAT  MAIL  CARRIAGE  55 

$28, 735, 065*  were  expended  upon  railway  transportation 
and  not  $36,207,572.  This  would  make  the  average  pay 
6.3  instead  of  8  cents  per  pound,  if  the  weight  was  as 
stated  and  the  railroads  carried  it  all. 

Postmaster- General  Wilson,  in  1895,  sa^  m  discussing 
second-class  mail  matter  that  "the  average  cost  to  the 
Department  of  transporting  and  handling  this  matter  is 
estimated  at  8  cents  per  pound."  Mr.  Wilson  did  not 
state  that  the  cost  of  railway  transportation  was  8  cents 
per  pound.  He  did  not  even  say  that  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation was  8  cents  per  pound,  but  that  the  average 
cost  of  transporting  and  handling  is  estimated  at  8  cents 
per  pound.  Mr.  Wilson  did  not  make  the  bald  state- 
ment that  it  costs  8  cents  per  pound  to  transport  and 
handle  this  matter,  because  he  knew  that  the  data  in  his 
possession  would  not  warrant  so  positive  an  announce- 
ment. In  his  next  report  in  directing  the  attention  of 
the  country  to  the  enormous  loss  arising  from  the  trans- 
mission of  second-class  matter  at  the  low  postage  rate  of 
I  cent  a  pound,  Mr.  Wilson  declared  that  "the  mere  cost 
of  transportation  of  this  matter  is  estimated  at  8  cents  a 
pound."  The  question  at  once  arises  as  to  what  he 
means  by  "transportation."  He  certainly  must  have 
had  in  mind  more  than  railroad  transportation,  for  the 
aggregate  of  the  several  forms  of  payment  to  the  rail- 
roads was  $30, 95 1, 528. 93. 2  The  total  weight  of  the 

1  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1894,  p.  27.    This  sum  includes 
all  three  forms  of  payment;  (i)  that  made  on  the  basis  of  weight,  (2) 
for  railway  post-office  cars,  and  (3)  "  special  facility  "  pay. 

2  Ibid.,  1806,  p.  39. 


56  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

mail — exclusive  of  the  franked  matter,  which  could 
not  have  been  less  than  50  million  pounds — was  512,- 
977,326  pounds  according  to  the  figures  of  the  Post- 
OfHce  Department.1  If  it  be  assumed  that  this  was  the 
amount  transported  by  the  railways,  the  average  cost  per 
pound  for  railway  transportation  was  but  6  cents. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  report  presented  by  Mr.  Loud 
in  behalf  of  the  House  Committee  on  the  Post-Office  and 
Post  Roads.  Speaking  for  this  committee,  Mr.  Loud 
said,  "The  cost  of  transporting  and  handling  all  mail 
matter  averages  8j4  cents  per  pound,"  and  that  the 
postage  paid  on  fourth-class  matter  is  1 6  cents  per  pound, 
which  is  about  double  the  cost  of  transmission,  etc. 
While  this  statement  may  not  be  so  explicit  as  could  be 
desired,  yet  any  one  in  search  of  the  facts  should  not 
have  fallen  into  the  error  that  8j£  cents  simply  cov- 
ered the  cost  of  railway  transportation.  Postmaster- 
General  Gary  said,  in  1897,  that  the  cost  to  the 
Government  of  transmitting  the  365  million  pounds  of 
second-class  mail  matter  carried  during  the  past  fiscal 
year  is  estimated  at  29  million  dollars,  or  about  8  cents 
a  pound;  "the  postal  revenue  received  from  it  is  esti- 
mated at  3  million  dollars,  leaving  a  loss,  on  transporta- 
tion alone,  of  26  million  dollars."  This  statement  is 
almost  too  vague  to  criticise.  If  the  second  statement 
explains  the  first,  the  most  that  can  be  said  is  that  the 
cost  to  the  Government  of  transporting  365  million  pounds 
of  mail  matter,  by  all  means  of  transportation  that  may 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  7,  8. 


CHARGE  FOR  RAIL  WAT  MAIL  CARRIAGE  57 

have  been  employed,  was  29  million  dollars.  It  did  not 
cost  the  Government  29  million  dollars  to  transport  365 
million  pounds  of  mail  matter  by  rail.  This  could  easily 
have  been  discovered  by  any  one  ready  to  go  to  a  little 
trouble  to  ascertain  the  truth.  The  total  cost  of  railway 
transportation  on  the  basis  of  weight  alone  was  approxi- 
mately 29  million  dollars — accurately,  $28,965,763 — and 
the  total  of  the  three  forms  of  payment  to  the  railroads 
was  $32, 490, 056.*  The  weight  carried  on  the  railroads, 
however,  greatly  exceeded  365  million  pounds,  which  was 
but  the  weight  of  the  second-class  matter,  according  to 
the  statistics  compiled  by  the  Department  itself.2  "The 
total  weight  of  the  mail  carried  was  607  million  pounds," 
said  Mr.  Loud  in  discussing  this  point  in  the  House  of 
Representatives.3  If  it  be  assumed  that  all  this  mail  was 
carried  by  the  railroads  during  some  portion  of  its  jour- 
ney, the  cost  for  railroad  transportation,  the  three  forms 
of  payment  being  included,  was  but  5.3  cents  per  pound. 
One  statement  yet  remains  to  be  examined;  that  made 
by  Mr.  Madison  Davis  to  the  general  superintendent  of 
the  railway  mail  service.  This  is  easy  to  explain  because 
the  facts  are  given  upon  which  it  is  based.  Mr.  Davis 
said  the  average  cost  per  pound  of  transporting  matter 
in  the  mails  for  the  fiscal  year  1897  was  about  8  cents 
per  pound.  Mr.  Davis  has  not  left  us  in  the  dark  as  to 
what  he  means  by  transportation.  He  gives  the  items  of 

1  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1897,  p.  16. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  7. 

3  Congressional  Record,  LV  Congress,  second  session,  p.  3328. 


58  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

expenditure  which  he  includes  under  the  general  head 
of  mail  transportation.  They  are  as  follows:1 

Railroad  transportation  — _ $28,965, 763. 5 2 

Special  facilities  on  railroads 162,978.33 

Star  transportation 5,322,484.86 

Steamboat  transportation 401,262.95 

Electric  and  cable  car  transportation 139,734.81 

Mail-messenger  service 951,624.29 

Wagon  service 705,260.25 

Mail  bags  and  catchers 343,324.59 

Mail  locks  and  keys 41,964.13 

Repair  shop  for  mail  bags 7,749.24 

.           Railway  postal -car  service 31361,313.76 

• — Transportation  of  foreign  mails  __ I>7°3>515'°5 

Additional  compensation  to  the  oceanic  steam- 
ship company 80,000.00 

Total $42, 1 86,97  5. 78 

Of  these  thirteen  items  of  expenditure  only  three  are  for 
railroad  transportation;  several  of  them  have  nothing  to 
do  with  transportation  of  any  kind.  Of  the  total  ex- 
penditure of  $42,186,975.78  only  $32,490,056  can  be 
assigned  to  railroad  transportation. 

We  have  now  examined  the  original  statements  on  the 
basis  of  which  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  railroads 
receive  on  the  average  8  or  8^  cents  per  pound  for  trans- 
porting the  mail,  and  have  found  that  the  statements 
quoted  do  not  warrant  the  assertions. 

In  making  certain  comparisons  it  is  often  asserted  that 

1  Senate  Report  No.  091,  p.  115,  LV  Congress,  second  session. 


CHARGE  FOR  RAILWAY  MAIL  CARRIAGE  59 

the  railroads  receive  on  the  average  8  cents  per  pound 
for  carrying  mail  an  average  distance  of  328  miles.  This 
differs  from  the  statement  just  examined  in  that  it 
attempts  to  state  the  average  distance  each  pound  of 
mail  is  carried.  It  represents  an  advance  on  the  previous 
statement,  for  it  looks  upon  the  haul  as  a  matter  of  too 
great  importance  to  be  wholly  disregarded.  In  the  con- 
sideration of  this  contention  our  investigation  will  take  a 
wider  range  than  in  the  examination  just  concluded.  Up 
to  this  point  I  have  merely  shown  that  certain  official 
statements  often  cited  have  been  grossly  misused.  Now 
I  shall  go  a  step  further.  Certain  data  furnished  by  the 
Post-Office  Department  will  be  valuated  and  the  methods 
employed  in  making  certain  estimates  and  averages  will 
be  analyzed.  It  will  be  shown  what  statistics  furnished 
by  the  Department  rest  upon  actual  observation,  and 
what  do  not.  By  this  is  meant,  if  the  statistics  have  to 
do  with  weight,  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  show  to  what 
extent  they  are  based  upon  weighings;  if  they  have  to 
do  with  the  distance  mail  is  carried,  to  what  extent  they 
are  based  upon  actual  tests  of  the  distance  mail  matter  is 
sent. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  statement  that  the  railways 
receive  on  the  average  8  cents  per  pound  for  carrying  the 
mail  an  average  distance  of  328  miles.  What  facts  does 
it  presuppose?  Obviously  the  following  data  must  be  at 
hand:  (i)  the  amount  of  matter  carried  by  the  railroads; 
(2)  the  average  distance  it  is  carried;  and  (3)  the  amount 
paid  the  railroads  for  rendering  the  service.  It  is  respect- 


60  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

fully  submitted  that  the  Post-Office  Department  does  not 
possess  accurate  data  on  the  first  two  heads,  and  if  the 
facts  are  not  in  the  possession  of  the  Department  no  one 
else  can  have  them. 

Attention  is  first  invited  to  the  amount  of  matter  in 
the  aggregate  actually  carried  by  the  railroads.  How 
many  pounds  of  mail,  that  is  original  matter,  each  piece 
being  counted  but  once,  are  carried  by  the  railroads  in  the 
course  of  a  year?  The  post-office  officials  cannot  give 
this  information.  They  do  not  possess  it.  They  do  not 
even  know  with  any  degree  of  accuracy  the  amount  of 
mail  matter  that  passes  through  the  mails  in  a  year.  But, 
in  spite  of  this  fact,  many  persons  who  have  discussed 
the  compensation  received  by  the  railroads  have  stated 
with  assurance  the  exact  amount  of  matter  handled  by 
the  Department  by  years  since  1880. 

In  1886,  Postmaster-General  Vilas  said,  in  comparing 
the  growth  of  our  mail  matter  with  that  of  other  coun- 
tries, "No  statistical  account  is  maintained  in  the  United 
States  of  the  quantity  in  weight  or  number  of  pieces  of 
our  domestic  mails;"1  and  then  ventured  nothing  more 
than  the  general  statement,  "but,  from  the  number  of 
postal-cards,  stamps,  and  pieces  of  stamped  paper  sold 
to  the  public,  it  may  be  unquestionably  affirmed  that  the 
mail  matter  handled  by  our  postal  service  greatly  out- 
weighs and  outnumbers  that  of  any  other  postal  system.'.' 
In  1887,  we  find  this  statement  in  the  report  of  the  Post- 
master-General: "As  I  have  before  observed,  it  is  diffi- 

1  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1886,  p.  4. 


CHARGE  FOR  RAIL  WAT  MAIL  CARRIAGE  6 1 

cult  to  state  with  any  degree  of  exactness  the  annual 
tonnage  of  the  United  States  mail  carried  on  all  the  rail- 
roads in  the  United  States. ' '  1  Here  it  was  again  ex- 
pressly acknowledged  that  no  exact  information  was  at 
hand  as  to  the  weight  of  the  mail  carried  by  the  railroads. 
When  Mr.  Wanamaker  became  Postmaster-General,  he 
was  very  much  hampered  by  the  lack  of  trustworthy 
information  of  the  volume  of  the  business  done  by  the 
Department.  He  made  the  first  attempt  to  ascertain  the 
count  and  weight  of  the  mail.  An  account  of  what  he 
did  will  be  inserted  in  his  own  words: 

For  important  statistical  purposes  the  Department  has  been 
at  a  loss  for  reliable  data  as  to  the  number  of  pieces  and  weight 
of  matter  passing  through  the  mails  and  the  amount  of  revenue 
derived  from  each  of  the  several  classes  of  matter.  For  reasons 
involving  the  quickest  possible  dispatch  of  the  mails  it  is  im- 
practicable to  take  a  continuous  account  of  the  matter  mailed. 
But  a  count  of  mail  matter  was  ordered  at  all  post-offices  in  the 
country  for  the  seven  consecutive  days  beginning  at  6  o'clock 
A.  M.  on  the  5th  of  May  and  ending  at  6  o'clock  A.  M.  on  the 
1 2th  of  May.  .  .  .  The  instructions  enjoined  the  utmost 
care  upon  the  postmasters  in  making  accurate  reports.  The 
week  selected  was  believed  to  be  a  fairly  average  period  upon 
which  to  estimate  the  total  business  for  the  year.2 

Upon  the  basis  of  this  weighing  the  weight  of  the 
whole  year  was  estimated.  Since  1890  no  actual  test  has 
been  made  of  the  weight  of  the  matter  passing  through 
the  mails.  The  statements  made  are  merely  estimates 

1  Ibid.,  1887,  p.  399. 

2  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1800,  p.  50. 


62  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

based  upon  Mr.  Wanamaker's  actual  test.  As  late  as 
December,  1897,  when  called  upon  for  a  statement  by 
the  general  superintendent  of  the  railway  mail  service, 
Mr.  Madison  Davis,  who  had  charge  of  these  statistics, 
replied:  "The  total  weight  of  mail  matter  of  all  kinds 
passing  through  the  mails  during  the  year  [1897]  ls  est^- 
mated,  upon  the  basis  of  an  accurate  calculation  made  in 
1890,  to  have  been  about  527,516,000  pounds."  l  It  has 
been  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Loud,  chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Post-Office  and  Post  Roads  of  the  House,  that 
this  estimate  does  not  include  the  franked  matter.  He 
estimates  all  the  matter  at  607  million  pounds. 2 

From  this  statement  it  appears  that  the  test  made  by 
Mr.  Wanamaker  in  1 890  for  a  single  week  is  still  the  basis  of 
the  estimates  made  of  the  amount  of  mail  passing  through 
the  Department.  At  this  point  two  questions  naturally 
arise:  (i)  Was  the  week  selected  an  average  week?  (2) 
Was  the  test  well  conceived  and  thoroughly  executed? 

Let  us  consider  the  first  point  raised — was  the  week 
selected  an  average  week?  This  is  a  difficult  question  to 
answer.  It  can,  however,  be  stated  with  assurance  that 
we  have  no  positive  information  that  it  was.  To  obtain 
an  average  the  factors  forming  the  average  must  be  at 
hand,  but  they  were  not  in  this  case.  The  field  is  so 
large  and  the  volume  of  the  business  is  so  great  that  it 
seems  perfectly  safe  to  say  that  it  is  impossible  for  any 
man  or  set  of  men  to  fix  upon  a  week  and  say  this  is  an 

1  Senate  Report  No.  991,  LV  Congress,  second  session,  p.  115. 

2  Congressional  Record,  LV  Congress,  second  session,  p.  3328. 


CHARGE  FOR  RAIL  WAT  MAIL  CARRIAGE  63 

average  week.  As  the  test  began  at  six  o'clock  on  the 
5th  of  May,  an  average  number  of  the  magazines  were  not 
carried,  for  the  magazines  of  large  circulation  are  mailed 
so  as  to  arrive  at  their  destination  before  the  first  of  the 
month.  I  have  been  informed  by  railway  mail  clerks 
that  the  period  during  which  the  mails  are  swelled  by 
the  magazines  is  clearly  marked.  They  begin  moving 
about  the  twentieth  of  each  month  and  in  a  few  days 
reach  their  maximum  movement,  and  quite  disappear  by 
the  last  of  the  month — a  few  appearing  as  late  as  the 
third  of  the  new  month.  A  test,  to  be  at  all  represen- 
tative, must  extend  over  at  least  a  month.  This  has 
been  fully  recognized  by  Congress.  In  the  act  of  1873 
fixing  the  rates  of  compensation  to  the  railroads  for  carry- 
ing the  mail  it  is  stated  that  the  weight  shall  be  deter- 
mined by  actually  weighing  the  mail  for  not  less  than  thirty 
successive  working  days.  Even  with  this  period  of  actual 
weighing  the  railroads  sometimes  feel  dissatisfied.1 

Was  the  test  well  planned  and  thoroughly  executed? 
No  account  was  taken  of  the  mail  received  in  this  country 
from  foreign  lands.  The  volume  of  this  mail  is  now  very 

1  In  the  autumn  of  1899  the  Postmaster-General  ordered  a  weigh- 
ing of  original  matter  in  all  post-offices.  This  is  the  most  complete 
test  that  has  yet  been  made.  By  it  the  mail  originating  in  each  one 
of  the  post-offices  was  ascertained.  The  weighing  was  continued 
from  October  3  to  November  6,  a  period  of  thirty-five  days.  While 
this  period  was  much  more  satisfactory  than  the  short  one  of  a  week, 
it  would  have  been  better  to  have  limited  it  to  exactly  one  month,  for 
this  period  represents  a  cycle.  Had  this  been  done,  the  proper  propor- 
tion of  light  and  heavy  days  would  have  been  included.  As  it  was, 
too  many  light  days  were  included.  The  time  selected  was  an  unfor- 
tunate one  for  Chicago,  because  the  pth  of  October  was  a  holiday,  the 
mail  on  this  day  being  only  one-half  the  usual  amount.  The  results 
of  this  weighing  can  be  found  in  the  statistical  appendix  p.  199. 


64  RAIL  WA  r  MAIL  SER  VICE 

great,  and  a  large  portion  of  it  is  hauled  across  the  conti- 
nent.1 The  test  was  not  satisfactory  for  another  reason. 
The  postmasters  were  informed  that  the  trial  should  not 
be  allowed  to  delay  the  transmission  of  mail.  As  a  result, 
during  the  busiest  hours  the  weight  of  the  mail  was  not 
obtained  by  actual  weighings.  The  weights  for  these 
hours,  which  it  was  especially  desirable  to  have  as  accu- 
rate as  might  be,  were  merely  estimates. 

In  the  light  of  the  facts  that  have  been  presented,  of 
what  value  are  tables  giving  the  amount  of  mail  passing 
through  the  mails  since  1880?  Obviously  these  tables 
are  not  to  be  regarded  as  absolute  data.  At  best,  they 
can  be  considered  nothing  more  than  rough  estimates. 
If  the  weight  of  the  mails  is  not  known  it  cannot  be  stated 
that  the  railroads  receive  eight  cents  per  pound  for  carry- 
ing the  mail. 

On  page  59  it  was  stated  that  it  was  manifestly  nec- 
essary to  have  the  following  data  to  tell  how  much  the 
railroads  received  per  pound  for  carrying  the  mail  an 
average  distance  of  328  miles:  (i)  The  weight  of  the 
matter,  (2)  the  average  distance,  and  (3)  the  pay  received. 
We  have  already  examined  the  data  falling  under  the  first 
head,  and  may  now  direct  our  attention  to  the  statistics 
we  have  under  the  second  head.  So  far  as  I  can  dis- 
cover, but  one  serious  attempt  has  been  made  to  ascertain 
the  average  distance  each  pound  of  mail  is  carried,  and 
that  was  limited  in  scope  and  of  short  duration.  In  1876, 

1  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1890,  pp.  51  and  52.  He  does 
include  the  amount  of  matter  sent  to  foreign  countries  from  the 
United  States. 


CHARGE  FOR  RAILWAY  MAIL  CARRIAGE 


65 


Postmaster-General  Jewell,  in  advocating  graduated  rates 
of  postage,  on  the  basis  of  distance,  to  apply  to  certain 
kinds  of  mail  matter,  said: 

In  order  to  arrive  at  any  distinct  conclusion  regarding  the 
rates  that  should  prevail  for  the  different  distances,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  have  the  different  proportions  of  mail  destined  for 
different  distances.  That  their  weight  might  be  had,  a  report 
was  asked  for  from  a  number  of  the  largest  offices  in  the  coun- 
try, giving  the  weight  of  the  different  classes  of  mail  going  to 
the  different  states  during  three  days,  and  the  distances  to  each 
and  all  states  were  averaged.1 

This  computation  showed  that  the  average  distance 
the  mail  was  then  carried  was  813.5  miles.2  No  other 
test  equally  thorough  has  since  been  made.  In  1889, 
Postmaster-General  Wanamaker  made  a  test  in  forty 
offices,3  and  found  that  the  average  distance  each  piece 

1  XLIV  Congress,  first  session,  Senate  Miscellaneous  Document 
No.ji,  p.  2. 

2  The  tabulated  results  were  as  follows: 


Weight  in  Pounds, 
d  I  087  EToincr 

Distanc 
O  t 

e,  Miles. 
o     300  1 
'      600 
'        OOO 
1,200 
1,500 
1,  800 
2,IOO 
2,400 
2,70O 

3,000 
3,000  j 

Average 
distance 
the  mails 
were 
carried, 
813^    miles. 

T  -3   AQ±          " 

1OO 

ic.  88  1      " 

go 

n  586     " 

ooo 

c.  528     " 

I,2OO 

1.260     " 

_    I.  COO 

*»  ^v 
2.OOO       " 

1,800 

1,378    " 

2,IOO 

C76        " 

2  AQO 

703     " 

2  7OO 

S8l7       " 

over 

101,418 

— XLIV  Congress,  first  session,  Senate  Miscellaneous  Document 
No.  51,  p.  3. 

3  His  experiment  was  tried  in  ten  of  the  principal  offices  of  each 
of  the  four  classes. 


66 


RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE 


of  mail  was  carried  was  442  miles.  A  glance,  however, 
at  the  following  table,1  which  presents  a  summary  of  the 
results  of  the  forty  offices,  will  show  that  the  average 
distance  each  pound  was  hauled  was  much  greater  than 
442  miles.  This  follows  from  the  fact  that  his  is  a 
weighted  average  on  the  basis  of  the  pieces  handled, 

RECAPITULATION  OF  THE  FORTY  OFFICES. 


Number  of 
Pieces. 

Number  of 
Pounds. 

Average  Num- 
ber of  Miles 
each  Piece 
was  Carried. 

i.    Letters  - 

^,^82,c;7I 

60.840 

^86 

2.    Postal-cards  

1528,076 

2,772 

-J-JQ 

3.    Wrapped   parcels  under 
seal  at  letter  rate  

8,007 

2,776 

47Q 

4.    Third-class  matter 

1  062  Q2S 

242  4.47 

cc8 

5.     Fourth-class  matter 

101.320 

42  8lQ 

CQQ 

5.983,905 

360,663 

442 

while  what  is  wanted  is  a  weighted  average  on  the  basis 
of  the  pounds  handled.  The  table  shows  that  of  the 
total  360,663  pounds  handled,  the  average  distance  that 
each  piece  of  the  242,447  pounds  of  third-class  matter  was 
carried,  was  558  miles,  and  that  the  average  distance  that 
each  piece  of  the  42,891  pounds  of  fourth-class  matter 
was  carried  was  599  miles.  The  table  also  shows  that  the 
average  distance  the  3,382,571  letters  were  carried  was 
but  386  miles,  and  the  average  distance  the  528,076 
postal-cards  were  carried  was  only  339  miles.  In  brief, 
the  matter  of  numerous  pieces  was  short-distance  mail, 
and  therefore  a  weighted  average  based  upon  pounds 

1  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1889,  p.  90. 


CHARGE  FOR  RAILWAY  MAIL  CARRIAGE  67 

would  show  a  larger  average  distance  than  one  based 
upon  pieces.  This  test  was  faulty  for  still  other  rea- 
sons— it  does  not  include  second-class  and  franked  mat- 
ter.1 If  the  table  were  still  of  any  value  in  showing  the 
average  distance  each  pound  of  mail  is  carried,  these 
omissions,  it  must  be  admitted,  completely  destroy  it, 
for  second-class  matter  is  long-distance  mail,  and  almost 
equals  in  weight  all  the  other  classes  combined.2  Now, 
if  the  weight  of  the  second-class  matter  was  about  equal 
to  that  of  all  other  matter  combined,  and  if  almost  the 
whole  of  it  was  long-distance  matter,  and  this  is  gener- 
ally conceded,  had  this  class  been  included  in  the  test, 
it  would  have  greatly  raised  the  average  distance  each 
pound  of  mail  was  carried. 

As  has  been  stated,  franked  matter  was  also  not 
included  in  the  test.  This,  even  to  a  greater  extent  than 
second-class  mail,  is  upon  the  whole  long-distance  busi- 
ness. Here  the  general  rule  that  people  communicate 
most  with  those  near  at  hand  does  not  hold  good,  and 
for  the  obvious  reason  that  the  friends  of  each  congress- 
man are  in  his  own  district. 

One  attempt  to  ascertain  the  average  distance  each 
pound  of  mail  is  carried  still  remains  for  examination. 
This  differs  radically  from  the  others.  It  does  not  rest 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  32  to  90. 

2  This  statement  is  based  on  the  test  made  for  one  week  in  1890 
of  the  different  classes  of  matter  mailed  in  the  United  States,  to 
which  I  have  already  referred.    As  I  hold  that  this  test  did  not  show 
the  average  amount  of  second-class  matter  handled,  I  believe  it  may 
be  asserted  that  the  weight  of  the  second-class-matter  fully  equals  all 
the  other  forms  of  postal  matter  combined,  including  the  free  and 
franked  matter. 


68  RAIL  WA  r  MAIL  SER  VICE 

upon  actual  observation,  but  on  a  series  of  computations 
based  upon  estimates.  In  the  language  of  its  author  it 
is  as  follows: 

An  estimate  by  the  Third  Assistant  Postmaster-General 
gives  an  average  weight  per  day  of  1,447,671  pounds  of  mail, 
which  added  to  an  estimated  weight  of  153,729  pounds  of 
equipment,  amounts  to  1,601,400  pounds. 

The  railway  adjustment  division  gives,  as  carried  by  rail- 
road lines  per  day,  7,846,851  pounds.  Therefore  1,601,400 
pounds  is  reweighed  as  many  times  as  it  is  contained  in 
7,846,851  pounds — 4.9 — which  must  necessarily  be  the  aver- 
age number  of  routes  a  pound  of  mail  passes  over  before  it 
reaches  destination. 

There  are  2,587  railroad  routes  in  the  United  States,  and 
the  total  number  of  miles  of  these  routes  is  173,256.  Therefore 
the  average  length  of  a  route  is  173,256.14  miles  divided  by 
2,587  routes,  or  66.97  miles. 

As  above  stated,  i  pound  of  mail  is  carried  over  4.9  routes, 
and  each  route  averages  66.97  miles,  which  makes  328  miles 
as  the  average  haul  of  a  pound  of  mail.1 

Let  us  examine  first  the  data  and  then  the  method  by 
which  this  result  was  obtained.  Attention  has  already 
been  directed  to  the  fact  that  the  Post-Office  Department 
has  no  data  that  are  satisfactory  of  the  total  amount  of 
mail  matter  handled  each  day;  and  therefore  it  was  very 
properly  stated  in  the  demonstration,  that  it  was  estimated 
that  the  average  weight  handled  per  day  was  1,601,400 
pounds.  It  was  also  said  in  the  demonstration  that  "the 

1  Senate  Report  No.  991,  p.  146,  LV  Congress,  second  session 


CHARGE  FOR  RAILWAY  MAIL  CARRIAGE  69 

railway  adjustment  division  gives,  as  carried  by  the  rail- 
road lines  per  day,  7,846,851  pounds."  This  sum  does 
not  represent  the  total  amount  of  mail  carried  by  the  rail- 
roads. The  weight  actually  carried  by  all  the  railroads 
is  considerably  in  excess  of  the  amounts  announced  by 
the  Department.  This  follows,  because  the  departmental 
statements  of  weight  carried  are  always  those  ascertained 
at  the  previous  weighings,  which  may  have  been  made 
more  than  four  years  before,  and  therefore  generally  fall 
far  short  of  the  weight  actually  carried.  Now,  as  the 
premises  of  the  demonstration  cannot  be  accepted,  the 
deduction  that  on  the  average  each  pound  of  mail  is  car- 
ried on  4.9  routes  cannot  be  accepted.  The  second 
average  is  above  criticism;  the  Department  has  actual 
information  of  the  number  of  post  routes  and  their  mile- 
age, and  can  therefore  obtain  the  average  length  of  the 
routes. 

The  data  used  in  ascertaining  the  average  328  miles 
have  now  been  examined  and  the  method  employed  in 
finding  this  average  may  now  be  considered.  The 
method  cannot  be  accepted.  And  for  the  very  obvious 
reason  that  the  relative  importance  of  the  routes,  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  weight  carried,  is  absolutely  neg- 
lected. It  is  generally  known  that  upon  the  whole  the 
short  routes  are  the  light  routes,  and  the  long  routes  are 
the  heavy  routes,  and  that  therefore  the  value  of  the  long 
routes  is  increased  by  reason  of  the  heavy  mails  that  pass 
over  them,  while  that  of  the  short  routes  is  diminished 
because  of  the  light  mails  that  pass  over  them. 


70  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

All  the  data  necessary  for  the  employment  of  the 
proper  method  of  determining  the  average  distance  each 
pound  of  mail  is  carried  were  at  hand.1  The  number  of 
pounds  of  mail  matter  (each  piece  counting  but  once) 
handled  in  the  mails  each  day,  and  the  average  number 
of  pounds  of  mail  carried  over  the  whole  length  of  each 
railroad  postal  route  in  the  United  States  each  day,  and 
the  length  of  these  routes,  were  all  the  facts  needed. 
With  the  length  of  the  routes  and  the  average  number 
of  pounds  carried  over  the  whole  length  of  each  route 
each  day,  the  total  number  of  miles  one  pound  was  car- 
ried could  be  obtained,  and  by  dividing  this  by  the  number 
of  pounds  turned  over  to  the  railroads,  the  average  dis- 
tance each  pound  was  carried  could  have  been  ascer- 
tained.2 

To  make  absolutely  clear  what  I  have  stated  I  shall 
resort  to  a  simple  illustration  showing  the  method  which 
was  employed  to  obtain  the  average  distance  each  pound 
of  mail  is  carried  and  then  the  method  I  hold  should  have 
been  adopted.  Let  us  suppose  that  there  are  but  five 
postal  routes  in  the  United  States,  which  are  represented 
by  the  letters  of  the  first  column  of  the  subjoined  table, 
that  they  carry  the  weights  indicated  in  the  second  column 

1  Some  of  these  data  have  been  criticised,  but  as  they  were  all 
used   in  determining  the   average  distance  mail  is  carried  by  the 
faulty  method,  there  appears  to  be  no  reason  why  they  could  not 
have  been  employed  in  determining  the  average  distance  by  the 
proper  method. 

2  In  1900,  after  the  results  of  the  weighing  of  1809  were  published, 
Professor  Henry  C.  Adams  computed  the  average  distance   each 
pound  of  mail  is  carried.    The  method  he  adopted  was  the  one  I 
have  outlined  and  now  shall  illustrate. 


CHARGE  FOR  RAILWAY  MAIL  CARRIAGE 


their  full  length  each  day,  and  that  they  have  the  lengths 
indicated  in  the  third  column.  Let  us  further  suppose 
that  805  pounds  of  new  matter  are  thrown  upon  the  rail- 
roads each  day. 


Routes. 

Average  Weight  of 
Mail  Carried 
over  Entire 
Route  per  Day. 

Length  of 
Route. 

Number  ot 
Miles 
One  Pound 
is  Carried. 

A 

Pounds. 
IO 

Miles. 
IO 

IOO 

B                       -    -      -  - 

IOO 

BQ 

c  QOO 

C                    .        

2OO 

IOO 

2O  OOO 

D                 . 

"IOO 

2OO 

6o,OOO 

E 

IOOO 

CQO 

coo  ooo 

Totals  

1610 

860 

sSs.ioo 

At  this  point  the  author  of  the  demonstration  cited 
would  say,  "As  the  weights  carried  on  all  the  routes 
amount  to  1,610  pounds,  and  the  new  matter  was  but  805 
pounds,  each  pound  must  have  been  carried  over  two 
routes/'  He  would  go  on  and  state  that  "there  are  five 
railroad  routes  in  the  United  States,  and  that  the  total 
number  of  miles  of  these  routes  is  860.  Therefore  the 
average  length  of  a  route  is  860  miles  divided  by  five 
routes  or  172  miles."  And  he  would  continue:  "As 
above  stated,  one  pound  of  mail  is  carried  over  two  routes 
and  each  route  averages  172  miles,  which  makes  344 
miles  as  the  average  haul  of  a  pound  of  mail." 

My  own  method  differs  radically  from  this.  By 
multiplying  the  number  of  pounds  carried  over  each 
route  by  the  length  of  the  route  I  obtain  the  number  of 
miles  one  pound  is  carried.  These  results  are  given  in 


72  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

column  four.  By  adding  these  products  I  find  that  the 
work  done  on  the  five  routes  was  equivalent  to  carrying 
one  pound  585,100  miles.  Now,  as  by  hypothesis  805 
pounds  of  mail  were  carried  on  these  five  routes,  we  have 
simply  to  divide  585,100  by  805  to  discover  the  average 
distance  each  pound  was  carried.  This  operation  gives 
726.7  miles,  or  more  than  twice  the  distance  obtained  by 
the  former  method.  The  importance  of  considering  the 
weight  of  the  mails  carried  as  well  as  the  length  of  the 
routes  is  perhaps  sufficiently  emphasized  by  this  illustra- 
tion. 

The  discussion  of  the  contention  that  the  railroads 
receive  on  an  average  8  cents  per  pound  for  carrying  the 
mail  an  average  distance  of  328  miles  is  now  finished. 
And  it  is  believed  the  following  propositions  have  been 
established:  (l)  that  the  reports  of  the  Government 
officials  do  not  warrant  the  statement  of  the  rate  of  pay 
commonly  announced;  (2)  that  the  total  weight  of  mail, 
each  piece  counting  but  once,  handled  by  the  Post-Office 
Department  in  a  year  is  not  known;  and  (3)  that  the  aver- 
age distance  each  pound  of  mail  is  carried  is  not  known. 


VALUATION  OF  DATA:  AN  EXAMI- 
NATION OF  THE  RESOLUTIONS  OF 
THE  NATIONAL  BOARD  OF  TRADE 


A  VALUATION  OF  DATA1 

While  the  Joint  Congressional  Commission  on  Postal 
Affairs  was  taking  testimony  at  Washington,  in  February, 
1899,  Mr.  Finley  Acker  appeared  before  it  and  presented 
on  behalf  of  the  National  Board  of  Trade  a  preamble  and 
resolution  in  which  it  is  contended  that  the  existing  law 
fixing  the  compensation  the  railroads  receive  for  carrying 
the  mail  ''requires  radical  modification."  As  this  docu- 
ment has  been  very  widely  circulated, a  and  as  it  contains, 
succinctly  presented,  practically  all  the  arguments  show- 
ing that  the  compensation  given  the  railroads  is  excessive, 
it  will  be  carefully  examined.  Attention  will,  in  the  main, 
be  directed  to  the  data.  A  satisfactory  review  of  the 
methods  employed  to  ascertain  what  would  be  fair  com- 
pensation to  the  railways  would  extend  this  article  beyond 
reasonable  limits.  The  data  will  now  be  valuated  and 

1  With  a  few  slight  alterations  this  chapter  is  reprinted  from  the 
Journal  of  Political  Economy,  September  number,  1899. 

2  The  way  was  prepared  for  the  preamble  and  resolution  by  a 
long  report  on  the  subject  of  railway  mail  pay  by  a  committee,  of 
which  Mr.  Acker  was  chairman.    This  report  and  the  preamble  and 
resolution  received  wide  distribution  through  the  printed  proceed- 
ings of  the  National  Board  of  Trade,  and  in  pamphlet  form.    After 
Mr.  Acker  appeared  before  the  Commission  on  Postal  Affairs,  these 
documents  together  with  his  testimony  were  sent  all  over  the  country; 
first  as  a  part  of  the  testimony  taken  by  the  commission,  then  as  a 
part  of  the  Congressional  Record  (LV  Congress,  third  session,  Vol. 
XXXII,  p.  2794  et  seq.\  and  finally  as  Senate  Document  No.  130,  LV 
Congress,  third  session. 

75 


76  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

they  will  be  taken  up  in  the  order,  or  about  the  order,  of 
their  importance. 

The  third  section  of  the  preamble  presented  by  Mr. 
Acker  in  behalf  of  the  National  Board  of  Trade  to  the 
Commission  on  Postal  Affairs  reads  as  follows:  "... 
the  Post-Office  statistics  show  that  the  rate  paid  to  the 
railroads  for  hauling  mail  matter  averages  forty  (40)  dol- 
lars per  ton  per  hundred  miles.  ..."  In  explaining 
the  sources  of  his  information,  he  says:  "This  statement 
is  verified  by  the  testimony  of  the  General  Superintendent 
of  the  Railway  Mail  Service  on  page  134  of  Senate  Report 
No.  991,  in  which  it  was  shown  that  $34,754,742.69  was 
paid  to  the  railroads  for  carrying  528,389,069  pounds  of 
matter  an  average  distance  of  328  miles,  thereby  showing 
the  cost  of  hauling  one  pound  of  mail  a  distance  of  328 
miles  was  6.58  cents,  or  $131.60  per  ton.  By  dividing 
$131.60  by  328  miles  we  have  40  cents  as  the  cost  per 
ton  per  mile  or  $40  per  ton  per  100  miles."  2 

As  practically  the  whole  of  Mr.  Acker's  argument  is 
based  on  the  contention  that  the  railways  receive  $40  per 
ton  per  100  miles,  or  an  average  of  6.58  cents  per  pound 
for  an  average  distance  of  328  miles,  these  statements  will 
be  very  carefully  examined.  The  possession  of  what 
facts  do  they  presuppose?  Obviously  to  make  them  the 
following  data  must  have  been  at  hand:  (i)  the  amount 

1  Testimony  taken  by  the  Joint  Commission  of  Congress  to  inves- 
tigate the  postal  service  under  the  act  of  Congress  approved  June 
13,  1898,  Part  I,  p.  826.     In  the  future  when  I  have  occasion  to  cite 
this  document  I  shall  refer  to  it  simply  as  "  Testimony,"  instead  of 
by  its  full  title. 

2  Testimony,  Part  I,  pp.  828,  829. 


A    VALUATION  OF  DATA  77 

of  matter  carried  by  the  railroads ;  (2)  the  average  dis- 
tance it  is  carried,  and  (3)  the  sums  paid  the  railroads  for 
rendering  the  service.1 

Attention  is  first  invited  to  the  amount  of  matter  in 
the  aggregate  actually  carried  by  the  railroads.  How  many 
pounds  of  original  mail  are  carried  by  the  railroads  in  the 
course  of  a  year?  The  Post-Office  officials  cannot  give  this 
information.  They  do  not  possess  it.  They  do  not  even 
know,  with  any  degree  of  accuracy,  the  amount  of  origi- 
nal mail  matter  that  passes  through  the  mails  in  a  year. 

In  1886,  Postmaster-General  Vilas  said,  in  comparing 
the  growth  of  our  mail  matter  with  that  of  other  coun- 
tries, "No  statistical  account  is  maintained  in  the  United 
States  of  the  quantity  in  weight  or  number  of  pieces  of 
our  domestic  mails."  2  In  1887,  we  find  this  statement 
in  the  Report  of  the  Postmaster  "General:  "As  I  before 
observed,  it  is  difficult  to  state  with  any  degree  of  exact- 
ness the  annual  tonnage  of  the  United  States  mail  carried 
on  all  the  railroads  in  the  United  States."  3  When  Mr. 
Wanamaker  became  Postmaster-General  he  was  very 
much  hampered  by  the  lack  of  trustworthy  information  of 
the  volume  of  the  business  done  by  the  Department. 
He  made  the  first  attempt  to  ascertain  the  count  and 
weight  of  mail.  An  account  of  what  he  did  will  be 
inserted  in  his  own  words: 

1  In  the  next  twelve  pages  some  of  the  material  of  the  preceding 
chapter  is  repeated,  but  the  argument  has  been  greatly  strengthened 
by  the  introduction  of  new  matter. 

2  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1886,  p.  4. 

3  Ibid.,  1887,  p.  399. 


7§  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

For  important  statistical  purposes  the  Department  has 
been  at  a  loss  for  reliable  data  as  to  the  number  of  pieces  and 
weight  of  matter  passing  through  the  mails  and  the  amount 
of  revenue  derived  from  each  of  the  several  classes  of  matter. 
For  reasons  involving  the  quickest  possible  dispatch  of  the 
mails  it  is  impractical  to  take  a  continuous  account  of  the 
matter  mailed.  But  a  count  of  mail  matter  was  ordered  at  all 
post-offices  in  the  country  for  the  seven  consecutive  days  be- 
ginning at  six  o'clock  A.  M.  on  the  5th  of  May,  and  ending 
at  six  o'clock  A.  M.  on  the  i2th  of  May.  .  .  .  The  instruc- 
tions enjoined  the  utmost  care  upon  the  postmasters  in 
making  accurate  reports.  The  week  selected  was  believed  to 
be  a  fairly  average  period  upon  which  to  estimate  the  total 
business  for  the  year.1 

Upon  the  basis  of  this  weighing  the  weight  of  the 
whole  year  was  estimated.  Since  1890  no  actual  test 
covering  the  whole  country  has  been  made  of  the 
weight  of  the  matter  passing  through  the  mails.2  The 
test  made  by  Mr.  Wanamaker  in  1890  for  a  single  week 
is  still  the  basis  of  the  estimates  made  of  the  amount 
of  mail  passing  through  the  Department.  At  this 
point  two  questions  naturally  arise:  (i)  Was  the  week 
selected  an  average  week?  (2)  Was  the  test  well  con- 
ceived and  thoroughly  executed?  The  week  was  not  an 
average  one,  but  for  reasons  that  will  appear  later  it  is 
unnecessary  to  discuss  this  point. 

Was  the  test  well  planned  and  thoroughly  executed? 
It  was  not  well  planned,  for  it  did  not  include  the  mail 
received  from  foreign  lands.3  The  volume  of  this  matter 

1  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1890,  p.  50. 

2  See  note,  p.  63. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  51,  52. 


A   VALUATION  OF  DATA  79 

is  considerable,  and  as  a  portion  of  it  is  hauled  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  it  should  not  be  omitted. 
Even  now  there  is  no  record  kept  of  the  weight  of  the 
mail  received  from  foreign  countries  except  that  of  the 
closed  mail  destined  for  countries  beyond  the  United 
States,  so  it  is  impossible  to  correct  the  Wanamaker  test. 
If  we  knew  the  quantity  of  mail  sent  abroad  we  should 
have  something  to  guide  us  in  estimating  the  amount 
received  from  abroad;  but  as  only  a  partial  record  is 
kept  of  the  mail  sent  to  foreign  countries,1  we  are  de- 
prived of  even  this  basis  of  computation. 

Was  the  test  well  executed?  By  the  testimony  of 
General  A.  D.  Hazen,  who  supervised  the  Wanamaker 
test,  it  is  made  clear  that  the  weighing  was  very  unsatisfac- 
tory, and  that  the  results  of  the  test  were  used  only  to  a 
very  limited  extent.2  After  the  test  was  completed,  it  was 
found  that  the  revenue  of  the  Department  lagged  far 
behind  what  the  amount  of  matter  the  test  showed  was 
handled  should  have  yielded.  To  make  the  weight  and 
revenue  check,  the  weights  were  altogether  rejected  or 
were  revised.  As  the  Department  already  possessed  sta- 
tistics covering  the  weight  of  the  paid  second-class  matter, 
the  weight  ascertained  by  the  test  was  entirely  discarded. 
The  weight  of  second-class  matter  mailed  free  in  the 
county  of  publication  was  obtained  from  a  test  made  some 
years  before  whereby  it  was  found  that  the  free  county 

1  No  record  is  kept  of  the  amount  of  mail  sent  to  Canada  and 
Mexico  by  rail. 

3  Testimony,  Part  I,  p.  459,  et  seq. 


8o  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

matter  was  15  per  cent  of  the  second-class  paid  matter.1 
The  weight  of  the  first,2  third,  and  fourth-class  matter 
was,  after  the  Procrustean  fashion,  lopped  off  so  that  the 
weight  accorded  with  the  revenue.  The  weights  ascer- 
tained by  the  Wanamaker  test  were  only  used  as  a  guide 
in  determining  the  proportion  in  which  the  revenue 
should  be  divided  among  the  three  kinds  of  matter. 
General  Hazen  testified  that  the  weight  ascertained  by 
the  Wanamaker  test  exceeded  the  revenue  by  about  10 
per  cent.3  Mr.  Madison  Davis,  who,  as  chief  clerk  to 
Mr.  Hazen,  had  general  oversight  of  the  test,  testified 
that  the  weight  of  the  first,  third,  and  fourth  class  matter 
was  reduced  by  10,  15,  20,  or  25  per  cent,  but  he  did  not 
know  by  exactly  how  much.4 

It  is  apparent  from  the  testimony  of  General  Hazen 
and  Mr.  Davis,  the  two  men  who  had  charge  of  the 
Wanamaker  test,  that  its  results  were  merely  a  rough 
approximation.  This  was  conceded  by  General  Hazen, 
for  when  pressed  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  results 
obtained,  he  said:  "This  tabulation  does  not  purport  to 
be  anything  more  than  an  estimate."5 

To  sum  up,  the  weight  ascertained  by  the  Wanamaker 
experiment  is  unsatisfactory  as  a  basis  for  computing 
the  weight  carried  by  the  railroads  for  the  following 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  464,  469. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  424.    The  number  and  weight  of  postal-cards  was  made 
to  agree  with  the  Department's  record  of  issues. 

•Ibid.,  p.  468. 
4  Ibid.,  p.  425. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  470. 


A    VALUATION  OF  DATA  8 1 

reasons:  (i)  It  does  not  include  the  weight  of  matter 
received  from  foreign  lands ;  (2)  the  weight  was  made 
to  conform  to  the  revenue,  and  thus  any  weight  carried 
which  was  not  paid  for  was  squeezed  out ;  (3)  in  making 
the  weight  balance  with  the  revenue  the  weight  of  the 
equipment  (pouches,  etc.)  was  wholly  excluded,  and 
therefore  the  ascertained  weight  was  about  10  per  cent 
less  than  that  carried  by  the  railroads;1  (4)  the  weight 
of  such  miscellaneous  articles  as  roller-top  desks,  iron 
safes,  carpets,  astronomical  instruments,  train-loads  of 
gold  sent  across  the  continent,  census  blanks,  etc.,  sent 
through  the  mail  to  accommodate  the  other  l)epartments 
of  the  Government  were  not  included.  A  fair  allowance  for 
these  items  would  swell  the  aggregate  weight  of  the  mail 
by  many  million  pounds.  The  results  of  the  Wanamaker 
test  may  be  unsatisfactory  for  still  another  reason.  The 
distribution  of  the  revenue  among  first,  third,  and  fourth 
class  matter  was  determined  by  the  weights  obtained  by 
the  Wanamaker  weighings.  In  other  words,  although 
the  actual  results  obtained  by  the  weighing  were  thrown 
out  because  they  were  found  to  be  incorrect,  it  was  held 
that  the  test  accurately  showed  the  relative  weight  of  the 

1  The  weight  of  the  equipment  represents  about  9.54  per  cent  of 
the  whole  weight.— James  E.  White,  General  Superintendent  Railway 
Mail  Service;  Senate  Report  No.  991,  p.  135,  LV  Congress,  second 
session. 

This  estimate  proved  to  be  far  too  low.  The  test  made  in  the 
autumn  of  1899,  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  showed  that  the 
weight  of  the  equipment  almost  equaled  the  weight  of  the  mail 
carried.  It  is  perhaps  needless  to  add  that  this  discovery  was  the 
greatest  surprise  uncovered  by  the  weighing,  and  that  it  has  led 
to  some  radical  reforms.  For  the  results  of  the  weighing  see  appen- 
dix tables  II  and  V. 


82  RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE 

different  classes  of  matter,  and  therefore  afforded  a  cor- 
rect basis  upon  which  to  distribute  the  revenue  of  the 
Department.  This  may  or  may  not  have  been  true.  If 
it  was  not  true,  and  the  weight  of  the  first-class  matter 
was  exaggerated  more  than  that  of  the  other  classes, 
then  too  much  revenue  was  assigned  to  first-class  matter, 
with  the  issue  that  the  final  result  showed  less  weight 
handled  by  the  Department  than  was  really  handled,  for 
a  given  revenue  assigned  to  first-class  matter  would  mean 
fewer  pounds  of  mail  handled  than  if  assigned  to  third 
or  fourth  class  matter. 

Now  let  us  examine  Mr.  Acker's  statement  of  the 
weight  of  the  mail  carried  by  the  railroads.  He  says 
"  that  $34,754,742.69  was  paid  to  the  railroads  for  carry- 
ing 528,389,069  pounds  of  matter  an  average  distance 
of  328  miles."  This  weight  does  not  include  all  the 
mail  handled  by  the  Post -Office  Department  during 
the  year  1897,  and  Mr.  Acker  should  have  known  this, 
for  the  inaccuracy  of  the  figures  he  accepts  had  been 
pointed  out  many  times.  The  weight  used  by  Mr.  Acker 
in  his  calculations  does  not  include  government  franked 
matter.  The  total  weight  of  the  mail  handled  during 
1897,  according  to  the  table  furnished  the  Commis- 
sion on  Postal  Affairs  by  Mr.  Davis,  was  583,555,552 
pounds,1  and  according  to  Mr.  Loud's  statements,  607 
million  pounds.2  But  for  reasons  that  have  just  been 
pointed  out,  even  these  sums  do  not  include  the  entire 

1  Testimony,  Part  I,  p.  422. 

3  Congressional  Record,  LV  Congress,  second  session,  p.  3328. 


A    VALUATION  OF  DATA  83 

weight  handled.  The  mail  received  from  abroad,  which 
we  shall  say  was  ten  million  pounds,  must  be  added, 
and  also  56,625,000  pounds  to  cover  the  weight  of  the 
equipment.1  If  these  additions  be  made  and  the  figures 
of  Mr.  Davis  be  taken  (they  are  less  than  Mr.  Loud's) 
we  find  that  approximately  650  million  pounds  of  mail 
were  carried,  instead  of  528, 389, 069. 2 

But  some  deductions  must  be  made  from  this  amount, 
for  the  total  weight  handled  by  the  Post-Office  Depart- 
ment is  not  transported  by  the  railroads.  Some  of  the 
foreign  matter  and  most  of  the  local  matter  never 
reaches  the  railroads  at  all.  A  portion  of  the  matter 
carried  by  star  routes  and  steamboats  is  not  transported 
during  any  portion  of  its  journey  by  rail.  But  these 
amounts  are  probably  not  so  large  as  they  are  gener- 
ally stated  to  be.  Very  likely  less  than  10  per  cent. 
or  say  one  million  pounds,  of  the  mail  received  from 
abroad  is  never  conveyed  by  railroad.  An  allowance 
of  10  per  cent,  seems  very  liberal,  for  the  foreign  mail 
of  our  great  Atlantic  seaports,  for  the  most  part,  comes 
to  New  York  and  is  then  conveyed  by  railroad  to  its 
destination.  The  local  matter  not  transported  by  railroad 
is  almost  wholly  confined  to  first-class  and  county  free 
matter.  But  even  some  of  this  local  matter  is  trans- 

1  Even  now  we  do  not  have  all  the  weight  carried,  for  we  have 
made  no  additions  for  several  factors  already  pointed  out  which 
are  very  difficult  to  estimate.    Many  million   more  pounds   should 
without  doubt  be  added. 

2  The  weighing  of  1809  showed  that  even  Mr.  Loud's  estimate 
was  conservative,  for  the  volume  of  mail  greatly  increased  from  1897 
to  1899.    For  details,  see  table  V,  page  201. 


84  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

ported  by  rail,  for  the  suburban  trains  are  now  being 
used  in  sending  mail  to  the  substations  of  large  cities. 
Very  little  of  the  third  -  class,  and  practically  none 
of  the  paid  second-class  and  of  the  fourth-class  and 
of  the  Government  franked  matter  is  local  matter. 
A  deduction,  therefore,  of  30  million  pounds  for  local 
matter  that  does  not  reach  a  railroad  would  be  very 
liberal.  It  is  very  difficult  to  estimate  the  amount 
of  mail  carried  by  steamboats  and  star  routes  that 
is  not  carried  through  some  portion  of  its  journey 
by  railroad.  But  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  volume 
of  this  matter  is  very  small  indeed.  The  steamboat 
routes  are  very  few  in  number,  and  the  "star"  mileage 
is  now  almost  wholly  made  up  of  short  stubs  connect- 
ing railway  stations  with  country  post-offices.  Practically 
none  of  the  second-class  paid  matter,  and  of  the  third 
and  fourth  class  and  of  the  Government  franked  matter 
is  carried  over  the  whole  of  its  journey  by  steam- 
boats and  the  conveyances  used  on  the  star  routes. 
It  therefore  seems  probable  that  not  over  15  million 
pounds  of  matter  begin  and  end  their  journey  on  steam- 
boats and  star  routes. 

To  sum  up ;  we  have,  say,  one  million  pounds  of  for- 
eign mail,  30  million  pounds  of  local  matter,  and  15  mil- 
lion pounds  of  mail  carried  by  steamboats  and  star 
routes,  or  a  total  of  46  million  pounds  that  is  not 
carried  through  any  portion  of  its  journey  by  the  rail- 
roads, and  must  therefore  be  deducted  from  the  total 
volume  of  matter  (650  million  pounds)  handled  by 


A   VALUATION  OF  DATA  85 

the  Post-Office  Department  to  obtain  the  weight  trans- 
ported by  the  railroads.  This  will  leave  604  million 
pounds  of  mail  that  are  transported  by  the  railroads, 
or  75,610,931  pounds  more  than  Mr.  Acker  gives  them 
credit  for  carrying.1 

In  all  his  computations  of  the  rate  of  pay  received 
by  the  railroads  for  carrying  the  mail  Mr.  Acker  assumes 
that  the  average_ distance  the  mail  is  carriedjs_j2S^miles 
as  was  announced  by  the  Post-Office  Department.  The 
statements  of  the  Post-Office  officials  of  the  average 
distance  mail  is  carried  are,  however,  far  more  unsat- 
isfactory than  their  statements  of  the  total  weight  of  the 
mail  handled.  So  far  as  I  can  discover,  but  one  serious 
attempt  has  been  made  to  ascertain  the  average  dis- 
tance each  pound  of  mail  is  carried,  and  that  was 
limited  in  scope  and  of  short  duration.  In  1876,  Post- 
master-General Jewell,  in  advocating  graduated  rates 
of  postage,  on  the  basis  of  distance,  to  apply  to  cer- 
tain kinds  of  mail  matter,  said : 

In  order  to  arrive  at  any  distinct  conclusion  regard- 
ing the  rates  that  should  prevail  for  the  different  distances, 
it  is  necessary  to  have  the  different  proportions  of  mail 
destined  for  different  distances.  That  their  weight  might 
be  had,  a  report  was  asked  for  from  a  number  of  the  largest 
offices  in  the  country,  giving  the  weight  of  the  different 
classes  of  mail  going  to  different  states  during  three  days, 
and  the  distances  to  each  and  all  states  were  averaged.2 

1  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  these  figures  are  only  my  estimates. 
3  Senate  Miscellaneous  Document  No.  51,  XLIV  Congress,  first 
session. 


86  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

This  computation  showed  that  the  average  distance 
the  mail  was  then  carried  was  813.5  miles.  No  other 
test  equally  thorough  has  since  been  made.  In  1889 
Postmaster  -  General  Wanamaker  made  a  test  in  forty 
offices,1  and  found  that  the  average  distance  each  piece 
of  mail  was  carried  was  442  miles.  A  glance,  however, 
at  the  following  table,2  which  presents  a  summary  of  the 
results  of  the  forty  offices,  will  show  that  the  average 
distance  each  pound  was  hauled  was  much  greater 
than  442  miles.  This  follows  from  the  fact  that  his 
is  a  weighted  average  on  the  basis  of  the  pieces  handled, 
while  what  is  wanted  is  a  weighted  average  on  the  basis 
of  the  pounds  handled.  The  table  shows  that  of  the 
total  360,663  pounds  handled,  the  average  distance  that 
each  piece  of  the  242,447  pounds  of  third-class  matter 
was  carried  was  558  miles,  and  that  the  average  dis- 
tance that  each  piece  of  the  42,891  pounds  of  fourth- 
class  matter  was  carried  was  599  miles.  The  table 
also  shows  that  the  average  distance  the  3,382,571  let- 
ters were  carried  was  but  386  miles,  and  the  average 
distance  the  528,076  postal  cards  were  carried  was  only 
339  miles.  In  brief,  the  matter  of  numerous  pieces 
was  short-distance  mail,  and  therefore  a  weighted  aver- 
age based  upon  pieces  would  show  a  smaller  average 
distance  than  one  based  upon  pounds. 

1  His  experiment  was  tried  in  ten  of  the  principal  offices  of  each 
of  the  four  classes. 

2  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1889,  p.  90. 


A   VALUATION  OF  DATA 
RECAPITULATION  OF  THE  FORTY  OFFICES. 


87 


Number  of 
Pieces. 

Number  of 
Pounds. 

Average  Num- 
ber of  Miles 
each  Piece 
was  Carried. 

Letters   --  - 

•j  082  C7i 

60  840 

186 

Postal-cards 

528  O?6 

2  772 

•3-lQ 

Wrapped  parcels  under  seal 
at  letter  rate  

8,007 

2,776 

4?O 

Third-class  matter 

I   062,02  Z 

24.2  14.7 

«8 

Fourth-class  matter 

101  ^26 

42  8lO 

D3" 
CQQ 

5.983.905 

360,663 

442 

This  test  was  faulty  for  still  other  reasons — it  does 
not  include  second-class  and  franked  matter.1  If  the 
table  were  still  of  any  value  to  show  the  average  dis- 
tance each  pound  of  mail  is  carried,  these  omissions, 
it  must  be  admitted,  completely  destroy  it,  for  second- 
class  matter  is  long-distance  mail,  and  almost  equals 
in  weight  all  the  other  classes  combined.  Now,  if  the 
weight  of  the  second  -  class  matter  was  about  equal 
to  that  of  all  other  matter  combined,  and  if  almost 
the  whole  of  it  was  long  -  distance  matter,  and  this 
is  generally  conceded,  for  the  short  -  distance  second- 
class  matter  is  largely  carried  by  express  companies 
and  fast  freight  trains,  had  this  class  been  included  in 
the  test,  it  would  have  greatly  raised  the  average  dis- 
tance each  pound  of  mail  was  carried. 

As  has  been  stated,  franked  matter  was  also  not 
included  in  the  test.  This,  even  to  a  greater  extent  than 
second-class  mail,  is  upon  the  whole  long  distance  busi- 
ness. Here  the  general  rule  that  men  communicate  most 

Hbid.,  pp.  32,  90. 


88  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

with  those  near  at  hand  does  not  hold  good,  and  for  the 
obvious  reason  that  the  friends  of  each  congressman  are 
in  his  own  district. 

One  attempt  to  ascertain  the  average  distance  each 
pound  of  mail  is  carried  still  remains  for  examination. 
This  differs  radically  from  the  others.  It  does  not  rest 
upon  actual  observation,  but  on  a  series  of  computations 
based  upon  estimates.  In  the  language  of  its  author,  it 
is  as  follows  : 

An  estimate  by  the  Third  Assistant  Postmaster-General 
gives  an  average  weight  per  day  of  1,447,671  pounds  of  mail, 
which  added  to  an  estimated  weight  of  153,729  pounds1  of 
equipment,  amounts  to  1,601,400  pounds. 

The  railway  adjustment  division  gives,  as  carried  by  rail- 
road lines  per  day,  7,846,851  pounds.  Therefore  1,601,400 
pounds  is  reweighed  as  many  times  as  it  is  contained  in 
7,846,851  pounds  —  (4-9)  —  which  must  necessarily  be  the 
average  number  of  routes  a  pound  of  mail  passes  over  before 
it  reaches  destination. 

There  are  2,587  railroad  routes  in  the  United  States,  and 
the  total  number  of  miles  of  these  routes  is  173,256.  There- 
fore the  average  length  of  a  route  is  173,256.14  miles  divided 
by  2,587  routes,  or  66.97  miles. 

As  above  stated,  one  pound  of  mail  is  carried  over  4.9 
routes,  and  each  route  averages  66.97  miles,  which  makes  328 
miles  as  the  average  haul  of  a  pound  of  mail.2 

1  It  should  be  noted  that  a  little  more  than  10  per  cent  is  here 
added  [for  the  weight  of  the  equipment.  This  allowance  proved 
far  too  small,  for  the  test  of  1809  showed  that  the  weight  of  the 
equipment  practically  equaled  the  weight  of  the  mail  carried.  For 
the  results  of  the  weighing,  see  table  II,  page  200. 

'Senate  Report  No.  991,  p.  146,  LV  Congress,  second  session. 


A   VALUATION  OF  DATA  89 

Let  us  examine  first  the  data  and  then  the  method  by 
which  this  result  was  obtained.  Attention  has  already 
been  directed  to  the  fact  that  the  Post-Office  Department 
has  no  data  that  can  be  regarded  as  satisfactory  of  the 
total  amount  of  original  mail  matter  handled  each  day  ; 
and  therefore  it  was  very  properly  stated  in  the  demon- 
stration that  it  was  estimated  that  the  average  weight 
handled  per  day  was  1,601,400  pounds.  It  was  also  said 
in  the  demonstration  that  "the  railway  adjustment  divis- 
ion gives,  as  carried  by  the  railroad  lines  per  day, 
7,846,851  pounds."  This  sum  does  not  represent  the 
total  amount  of  mail  carried  by  the  railroads.  The 
weight  actually  carried  by  all  the  railroads  is  considera- 
bly in  excess  of  the  amounts  announced  by  the  Depart- 
ment. The  departmental  statements  of  weight  carried 
are  always  those  ascertained  at  the  previous  weighings, 
which  may  have  been  made  more  than  four  years  before, 
and  therefore  these  statements  generally  are  far  short  of 
the  weight  actually  carried.  Now,  as  the  premises  of 
the  demonstration  cannot  be  accepted,  the  deduction 
that  on  the  average  each  pound  of  mail  is  carried  over 
4.9  routes  cannot  be  accepted.  The  second  average  is 
above  criticism  ;  the  Department  has  actual  information 
of  the  number  of  post  routes  and  their  mileage,  and  can 
therefore  obtain  the  average  length  of  the  routes. 

The  data  used  in  ascertaining  the  average  328  miles 
have  now  been  examined,  and  the  method  of  finding  the 
average  distance  each  pound  of  mail  is  carried  may  now 
be  considered.  The  method  cannot  be  accepted.  And 


90  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

for  the  very  obvious  reason  that  the  relative  importance 
of  the  routes,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  weight  carried, 
is  absolutely  neglected.  It  is  generally  known  that  upon 
the  whole  the  short  routes  are  the  light  routes,  and  the 
long  routes  are  the  heavy  routes,  and  that  therefore  the 
value  of  the  long  routes  is  increased  by  reason  of  the 
heavy  mails  that  pass  over  them,  while  that  of  the  short 
routes  is  diminished  because  of  the  light  mails  that  pass 
over  them. 

All  data  necessary  for  the  employment  of  the  proper 
method  of  determining  the  average  distance  each  pound 
of  mail  is  carried  were  at  hand.1  The  number  of  pounds 
of  mail  matter  (each  piece  counting  but  once)  handled 
in  the  mails  each  day,  and  the  average  number  of  pounds 
of  mail  carried  over  the  whole  length  of  each  railroad 
postal  route  in  the  United  States  each  day,  and  the 
length  of  these  routes,  were  all  the  facts  needed.  With 
the  length  of  the  routes  and  the  average  number  of 
pounds  carried  over  the  whole  length  of  each  route  each 
day,  the  total  number  of  miles  one  pound  was  carried 
could  be  obtained,  and  by  dividing  this  by  the  number 
of  pounds  turned  over  to  the  railroads,  the  average 
distance  each  pound  was  carried  could  have  been  ascer- 
tained. 

To  make  absolutely  clear  what  I  have  stated,  I  shall 
resort  to  a  simple  illustration  showing  the  method  which 

1  Some  of  these  data  have  been  criticised,  but  as  they  were  all 
used  in  determining  the  average  distance  mail  is  carried  by  the  faulty 
method,  there  appears  to  be  no  reason  why  they  should  not  have  been 
employed  in  determining  the  average  distance  by  the  proper  method. 


A    VALUATION  OF  DATA 


was  employed  to  obtain  the  average  distance  each  pound 
of  mail  is  carried,  and  then  the  method  I  hold  should 
have  been  adopted.  Let  us  suppose  that  there  are  but 
five  postal  routes  in  the  United  States,  which  are  repre- 
sented by  the  letters  of  the  first  column  of  the  subjoined 
table,  that  they  carry  the  weights  indicated  in  the  second 
column  their  full  length  each  day,  and  that  they  have 


Routes. 

Average  Weight 
of  Mail  Carried 
over  Entire 
Route  per  Day. 

Length  of 
Route. 

Number  of 
Miles  One 
Pound  is 
Carried. 

A- 

Pounds. 
IO 

Miles. 
IO 

IOO 

B 

IOO 

en 

c  ooo 

c 

2OO 

3^ 
IOO 

3rJ^*J 
2O  OOO 

D 

OQO 

2OO 

60  ooo 

E 

IOOO 

COO 

coo  ooo 

Totals 

1610 

860 

c8c  loo 

the  lengths  indicated  in  the  third  column.  Let  us  fur- 
ther suppose  that  805  pounds  of  new,  that  is  original, 
matter  are  thrown  upon  the  railroads  each  day.  At  this 
point  the  author  of  the  demonstration  cited  would  say, 
"As  the  weights  carried  on  all  the  routes  amount  to  1610 
pounds,  and  the  new  matter  was  but  805  pounds,  each 
pound  must  have  been  carried  over  two  routes."  He 
would  go  on  and  state  that  "there  are  five  railroad  routes 
in  the  United  States,  and  that  the  total  number  of  miles 
of  these  routes  is  860,  therefore  the  average  length  of  a 
route  is  860  miles  divided  by  five  routes,  or  172  miles." 
And  he  would  continue:  "As  above  stated,  one  pound  of 
mail  is  carried  over  two  routes,  and  each  route  averages 


92  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER VICE 

172  miles,  which  makes  344  miles  as  the  average  haul  of 
a  pound  of  mail." 

My  own  method  differs  radically  from  this.  By 
multiplying  the  number  of  pounds  carried  over  each 
route  by  the  length  of  the  route,  I  obtain  the  number  of 
miles  one  pound  is  carried.  These  results  are  given  in 
column  four.  By  adding  these  products  I  find  that  the 
work  done  on  the  five  routes  was  equivalent  to  carrying 
one  pound  585,100  miles.  Now,  as  by  hypothesis  805 
pounds  of  mail  were  carried  on  these  five  routes,  we  have 
simply  to  divide  585,100  by  805  to  discover  the  average 
distance  each  pound  was  carried.  This  operation  gives 
726.7  miles,  or  more  than  twice  the  distance  obtained  by 
the  former  method. 

^^•^•The  importance  of  considering  the  weight  of  the 
mails  carried,  as  well  as  the  length  of  the  routes,  is  of 
such  great  moment  that  another  illustration  will  be  intro- 
duced, even  at  the  double  risk  of  offending  the  reader 
and  of  performing  a  work  of  supererogation.  The  error 
pointed  out  is  such  a  simple  one  that  ordinarily  it  would 
be  quite  sufficient  to  state  it  for  it  to  be  seen.  It  is  the 
old  question  as  to  whether  a  simple  or  weighted  average 
should  be  used.  The  error  made  by  the  Post-Office 
officials  is  sometimes  made  in  computing  average  wages, 
and  as  the  difference  between  a  simple  and  weighted 
average  can  easily  be  pointed  out  in  the  domain  of  wages, 
an  illustration  will  be  drawn  from  this  field.  Suppose 
that  a  firm  has  twenty  men  and  five  boys  in  its  employ, 
and  that  the  former  receive  $3  per  day  and  the  latter 


A    VALUATION  OF  DATA  93 

$0.50,  and  that  the  full  force  works  each  day.  What  is 
the  average  wage  paid  per  day  by  this  firm  ?  It  cer- 
tainly is  not  $1.75,  the  average  of  the  rates  of  pay,  for 
$1.75  multiplied  by  twenty-five,  the  number  of  persons 
employed,  gives  but  $43.75.  This  result  shows  at  once 
that  an  error  has  been  made,  for  twenty  men  who  each 
receive  $3  per  day  would  in  the  aggregate  receive  $60, 
and  five  boys  who  each  get  $0.50  per  day  would  in  the 
aggregate  earn  $2.50  more,  making  a  grand  total  of 
$62.50  received  by  the  twenty-five  persons  employed,  or 
an  average  of  $2.50  per  day,  instead  of  $1.7 5,  the  average 
obtained  by  dividing  by  two  the  sum  obtained  by  adding 
$3  and  $0.50,  the  rates  of  pay  respectively  received  by 
the  men  and  boys.  It  must  be  at  once  apparent  that  the 
number  of  persons  employed  as  well  as  the  rates  of 
wages  paid  must  be  considered  if  the  average  wage  actu- 
ally paid  be  desired,  and  for  the  same  reason  the  weight 
of  the  mails  carried  over  the  different  postal  routes  must 
be  taken  into  consideration  as  well  as  the  length  of  the 
routes  if  the  average  distance  each  pound  of  mail  is  car- 
ried be  sought. 

The  third  paragraph  of  Mr.  Acker's  preamble  reads 
as  follows:  "The  Post-Office  statistics  show  that  the  rate 
paid  to  the  railroads  for  hauling  mail  matter  averages 
forty  (40)  dollars  per  ton  per  hundred  miles,  while  at 
the  same  time,  according  to  Poor's  Railroad  Manual, 
the  rate  received  by  railroads  for  hauling  miscellaneous 
freight  averages  but  eighty-two  (82)  cents  per  ton  per 
one  hundred  miles,  and  the  rate  received  by  the  railroads 


94  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

for  carrying  passengers  (allowing  200  pounds  for  each 
passenger  and  baggage)  is  about  twenty  (20)  dollars  per 
ton  per  hundred  miles."  1 

It  has  just  been  shown  that  there  is  no  warrant  for 
the  statement  that  the  railroads  receive  forty  dollars  per 
ton  per  hundred  miles  for  the  carriage  of  mail.  I  should 
be  greatly  surprised  if  they  received  one-third  of  this 
sum.2  Their  earnings  from  freight  and  passengers  are 
probably  about  as  given.  The  comparison  of  mail  and 
freight  earnings  is  valueless  because  (i)  of  the  unsatis- 
factory character  of  the  statements  of  mail  earnings,  and 
(2)  of  the  radical  differences  in  the  character  of  the 
service.  More  will  be  said  upon  the  latter  point  later 
on.  It  will  not  be  discussed  here,  as  it  is  my  desire  to 
valuate  the  data  used  by  Mr.  Acker  before  examining  his 
methods.  Because  of  the  first  of  the  reasons  just  stated, 
a  comparison  of  mail  and  passenger  earnings  cannot  be 
instituted.  Mr.  Acker's  statement  of  mail  earnings  is  so 
wide  of  the  truth  that  nothing  will  be  said  of  mail  and 
passenger  earnings  at  this  point.  The  discussion  of  this 
subject  can  be  profitably  delayed  until  a  later  day,  for 
the  Commission  on  Postal  Affairs  has  in  preparation  a 
table  showing  the  earnings  per  ton  per  mile  from  the  mail 
traffic. 

The    fourth    paragraph    of    Mr.    Acker's    preamble 

testimony,  Part  I,  p.  826. 

2  A  few  months  after  this  chapter  was  originally  printed,  Professor 
Adams  found  that  the  railroads  received  12.56  cents  per  ton  per  mile, 
and  as  he  made  no  allowance  for  the  weight  carried  for  which  no  pay- 
ment is  made,  even  this  amount  is  a  little  too  high.  My  estimate  was 
therefore  well  within  bounds. 


A   VALUATION  OF  DATA  95 

declares  that  "the  Post-Office  statistics  further  show 
that  the  average  rate  paid  to  the  railroads  for  hauling 
of  mail  matter  the  length  of  the 


average  haul  (estimated  to  be  328  miles)  is  six  dollars 
and  fifty-eight  cents  ($6.58),  while  the  Census  Report  of 
1890  shows  that  the  average  rate  paid  to  the  railroads  by 
the  express  companies  for  their  average  haul  (the  length 
of  which  is  not  shown  by  statistics)  was  but  sixty  (60) 
cents  per  hundred  pounds."1  Nothing  further  need  be 
said  about  the  worthlessness  of  the  statements  of  mail 
earnings.  The  statements  of  the  earnings  of  the  rail- 
roads from  the  express  business  cited  by  Mr.  Acker  in 
the  preamble  appear  to  be  even  more  inaccurate  than  his 
statements  of  their  mail  earnings.  This  is  made  clear  by 
the  testimony  of  H.  S.  Julier,  general  manager  of  the 
American  Express  Company,  before  the  Joint  Commis- 
sion of  Congress  on  Postal  Affairs.  The  questions  put 
to  Mr.  Julier,  which,  when  not  otherwise  stated,  were 
asked  by  the  chairman  of  the  Commission,  Senator  Wol- 
cott,  and  Mr.  Julier's  answers  will  now  be  introduced. 
They  will  substantiate  my  statement. 

Question.  Perhaps,  Mr.  Julier,  before  I  go  extensively 
into  that  [the  tonnage  carried  by  the  American  Express 
Company  during  the  year  1897]  I  had  better  ask  you  if 
you  have  examined  the  report  of  the  Eleventh  Census,  so 
far  as  the  same  is  made  applicable  to  the  express  com- 
panies ? 

Answer.  I  have  examined  the  report. 

testimony,  Part  I,  p.  826. 


96  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

Q.  Can  you  give  the  Commission  some  information 
as  to  who  prepared  this,  in  general,  as  to  its  accuracy, 
and  any  details  respecting  it  that  would  give  any  infor- 
mation to  the  Commission  as  to  what  reliability  can  be 
placed  upon  it  ? 

A.  The  American  Express  Company's  figures  were 
furnished  by  its  general  auditor.  If  you  will  allow  me,  I 
will  peruse  the  census  report  [referring  to  the  report].  I 
now  speak  so  far  as  the  American  Express  Company  is 
concerned. 

Q.  You  are  testifying  generally  as  to  the  American 
Express  Company,  which,  compared  with  the  other  large 
express  companies,  does  about  what  proportion  of  the 
business  ? 

A.  It  does  fully,  I  should  say,  one-fourth  of  the 
business. 

Mr.  Moody :  Of  the  whole  country  ? 

A.  Perhaps  it  might  not  be  one-quarter,  but  nearly 
that. 

Mr.  Loud  :  Much  of  your  business  goes — the  business 
you  are  estimating — through  other  express  companies, 
too? 

The  Witness  :  That  is  true. 

By  the  Chairman  :  You  are  now  testifying  so  far  as  the 
business  of  the  American  Express  Company  is  concerned  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  The  number  of  waybills,  the  number  of 
packages  carried,  the  weight  per  package,  are  all  esti- 
mated, and  I  might  say  guessed. 

Q.  How  were  they  ascertained  ?     Do  you  know  ? 


A   VALUATION  OF  DATA  97 

A.  In  talking  with  our  general  auditor  in  reference  to 
this  matter,  he  said  that  the  census  commission  sent  a 
man  over  to  New  York  several  times — in  fact,  he  came 
there  repeatedly  for  three  months.  He  was  told  very 
explicitly  that  the  American  Express  Company  had  no 
statistics  on  those  points,  and  it  would  be  absolutely 
impossible  to  give  accurate  information.  About  a  month 
before  the  census  report  was  to  be  published,  or,  rather, 
the  date  fixed  for  closing  the  report,  he  came  and  said 
that  he  must  have  some  information  on  those  points. 
He  was  again  told  that  it  was  absolutely  impossible  to 
give  anywhere  near  accurate  figures.  He  said,  "Some  fig- 
ures must  be  given."  ''Well,  then,  all  I  can  do  is  to 
make  an  estimate;  I  will  do  the  best  I  can,"  is  what  our 
general  auditor  replied.  He  said  that  he  had  but  a  few 
days  in  which  to  prepare  the  figures,  and  made  the  best 
estimate  possible.  He  did  not  pretend  that  they  were 
accurate,  not  supposing  for  a  moment  that  they  were  to  be 
used  for  the  purpose  of  comparing  with  mail,  simply  for 
the  reason  that,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  the  figures 
had  no  value  whatever  in  our  business. 

Now,  as  to  the  tonnage.  It  is  shown  here  that  the 
American  Express  Company  carried  570, 593  tons.  I  said 
to  the  general  auditor,  "How  do  you  arrive  at  those  fig- 
ures ?  "  He  replied  :  "  I  called  upon  the  superintendents 
for  them. "  I  said:  "  Well,  what  do  they  represent  ?  They 
certainly  do  not  represent  the  tons  we  actually  carried; 
that  is,  gross  tons"  [each  article  counting  but  once].  He 
replied,  "I  don't  know  anything  about  that."  "Well,"  I 


98  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

said  to  him,  "the  simplest  test  that  I  can  put  those  fig- 
ures to  demonstrates  to  me  that  there  is  a  very  large 
duplication  there."  I  made  the  test  to  him,  and  he 
answered,  "Of  course.'*  I  said  further,  that  if  the  Amer- 
ican Express  Company  had  carried  that  many  tons  of 
freight  from  initial  points  and  earned  no  more  money  than 
they  had  that  year  they  would  have  gone  into  the  hands 
of  a  receiver.  I  then  said  to  him,  "  It  is  quite  evident, 
to  my  mind,  that  the  superintendents,  in  giving  you  those 
figures,  have  taken  the  gross  tonnage  carried  over  each 
line  of  road  and  over  each  division  of  roads  with  which 
we  have  separate  contracts,  and  aggregated  the  whole." 
He  then  brought  me  papers  upon  which  these  figures  were 
based,  and  it  was  as  clear  as  daylight  that  I  was  correct. 

Q.  Just  explain  to  the  Commission  how  they  would 
be  duplicated. 

A.  In  1890  a  very  large  proportion — I  might  say  95 
per  cent — of  our  roads  were  paid  on  the  tonnage  basis, 
and,  of  course,  each  road — the  gross  tonnage  carried  over 
each  road — had  to  be  computed  separately.  The  ton- 
nage going  from  Boston  to  Chicago  would  be  reported 
from  Boston  to  Albany,  Albany  to  Buffalo,  Buffalo  to 
Chicago;  and  if  it  was  going  beyond  Chicago,  it  would 
again  be  reported  over  the  Chicago  and  North-Western,  or 
the  Burlington,  as  the  case  might  be;  so  over  each  of  the 
separate  roads  the  tonnage  would  be  reported,  and  the 
sum  total  of  the  gross  weights  as  carried  over  each  sep- 
arate road  represents  the  weights  which  appear  in  the 
census  report. 


A   VALUATION  OF  DATA  99 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  you  had  a  report  from  the  Bos- 
ton office  showing  the  tonnage  billed  from  there,  and  you 
had  the  same  tonnage  reported  at  Albany,  and  the  same 
tonnage  reported  at  Buffalo,  and  again  at  Chicago,  if  it 
went  west. 

Mr.  Chandler:  On  through  matter? 

The  Chairman:  "Yes,  sir. 

The  Witness:  Now,  I  might  say  this:  take  the  New 
York  Central  system,  for  instance,  at  that  time;  it  would 
be  possible  for  a  hundred  pounds  of  freight  to  be  reported 
five  different  times. 

Mr.  Allison:  On  a  single  road? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  because  the  contracts  were  separate. 

By  the  Chairman:  Can  you  give  the  commission  any 
sort  of  estimate  or  opinion  as  to  what  extent  that  esti- 
mate of  tonnage  is  exaggerated? 

A.  The  best  figures  that  I  can  make  show  that  this 
tonnage  must  be  cut  in  two  first,  and  not  less  than 
10  per  cent  more  of  it  taken  off  for  transfers  of  matters 
received  from  other  companies.  Forty  per  cent,  cer- 
tainly is  the  highest  proportion  of  those  figures  that  we 
carried. 

Q.  You  are  unable  to  state,  I  suppose,  as  to  whether 
that  is  true  of  other  companies? 

A.  Well,  from  looking  over  the  reports,  I  should  say 
it  must  be  the  same. 

Q.  Then  you  would  say  that  if  60  per  cent  were 
deducted  from  those  figures  that  they  would  represent 
fairly  the  tonnage  of  the  express  matter? 


1 00  RAIL  WA  r  MAIL  SER  VICE 

A.  I  should  think  it  would  represent  fully  the  amount 
of  tonnage  carried. 

Mr.  Moody:  In  1890? 

A.  In  1890.  I  should  rather  think  that  33^  per 
cent  would  be  better,  but  40  per  cent  would  certainly, 
in  my  judgment,  be  right. 

Q.   Now,  as  to  [the  length  of]  the  haul? 

A.  It  is  a  most  difficult  thing  to  arrive  at;  in  differ- 
ent sections  of  the  country  it  varies.  In  the  Eastern  and 
New  England  States  I  should  place  it  at  about  IOO 
miles,  possibly  125  miles;  in  the  Central  States  it 
would  be  a  little  more,  and  in  the  Western  States  it 
would  probably  run  from  175  to  200  miles.1 

It  was  shown  by  me  that  we  have  no  statistics  of 
value  of  the  cost  to  the  Government  of  hauling  the  mail. 
It  was  made  clear  that  the  statistics  commonly  used 
are  grossly  inaccurate.  By  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Julier 
it  is  apparent  that  the  information  concerning  the  express 
business  contained  in  the  Eleventh  Census  is  also  wholly 
unsatisfactory.  The  real  weight  carried,  each  article 
counting  but  once,  was  very  much  less  than  the  weight 
announced,  for  in  making  up  the  weight  the  matter  was 
reweighed  as  it  passed  from  railroad  to  railroad,  and 
often  when  it  passed  from  one  division  of  the  same  rail- 
road to  another.  If  a  comparison  should  be  made  of 
mail  and  express,  it  would  be  fairer  to  use  the  aggregate 
of  the  mail  matter  carried  on  all  the  postal  routes  of  the 

1  Testimony,  Part  I,  p.  513  et  seq. 


A    VALUA TION  OF  DATA  I O I 

United  States,  instead  of  the  total  weight  handled  by  the 
Post-Office  Department,  each  piece  counting  but  once. 
If  this  were  done,  the  mail,  as  was  the  express  matter, 
would  be  reweighed  every  time  it  was  turned  over  to  a 
new  system,  and  often  when  it  passed  from  one  division 
of  a  railroad  to  another. 

A  comparison  of  railroad  earnings  from  mail  and 
express  is  unsatisfactory  for  another  reason.  The  aver- 
age distance  mail  is  carried  appears  greatly  to  exceed  the 
average  distance  express  matter  is  carried.  The  average 
distance  the  mail  is  transported,  according  to  the  statis- 
tics furnished  by  the  Post-Office  Department,  is  328 
miles,  but  the  actual  distance  is  probably  much  greater. 
Mr.  Julier  estimated  that  the  average  distance  express 
matter  is  carried  in  the  Eastern  and  New  England  States 
to  be  about  100  miles,  possibly  125  miles,  in  the  Cen- 
tral States  a  little  farther  than  this,  and  in  the  Western 
States  from  175  to  200  miles.  Mail  matter  is  thus  prob- 
ably carried  much  more  than  twice  as  far  as  express 
matter. 

The  last  paragraph  of  the  preamble  submitted  to  the 
Commission  on  Postal  Affairs  by  Mr.  Acker  in  behalf  of 
the  National  Board  of  Trade  reads  as  follows:  "The 
Department  now  pays,  in  addition  to  the  above  rates 
[viz.,  $40  per  ton  per  hundred  miles  or  $6.58  per  one 
hundred  pounds  for  the  average  distance  mail  is  carried], 
an  extra  charge,  averaging  six  thousand  two  hundred  and 
fifty  (6,250)  dollars  each  year,  for  the  use  of  each  special 
mail  car,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  these  cars  cost 


i  02  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

only  from  two  thousand  five  hundred  (2,500)  dollars  to 
four  thousand  (4,000)  dollars  each  to  construct,  and  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  the  additional  cost  to  the  rail- 
roads in  using  these  cars  over  the  ordinary  apartment 
cars,  which  they  otherwise  would  use,  consists  mainly  in 
hauling  a  slightly  heavier  weight."1  In  his  oral  testimony 
before  the  postal  commission  Mr.  Acker,  while  explain- 
ing how  he  obtained  the  rates  received  by  the  railroads, 
said:  "Post-office  statistics  show  that  the  rate  paid  to  the 
railroads  for  hauling  mail  matter  averages  $40  per  ton 
per  100  miles.  This  statement  is  verified  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  General  Superintendent  of  Railway  Mail 
Service  on  page  134  of  Senate  Report  No.  991,  in  which 
it  was  shown  that  $34,754,742,69  was  paid  to  the  rail- 
roads for  carrying  528,389,069  pounds  of  matter  an 
average  distance  of  328  miles,  thereby  showing  the  cost 
of  hauling  I  pound  of  mail  a  distance  of  328  miles  was 
6.58  cents  or  $131.60  per  ton."2  An  examination  of 
page  134  of  Senate  Report  No.  991,  LV  Congress,  sec- 
ond session,  reveals  the  fact  that  the  $34,754,742.69 
paid  to  the  railroads  for  carrying  the  mail  includes  the 
sum  (of  $3,770,138.17)  paid  to  the  railroads  for  cars 
furnished.  There  is  therefore  no  extra  charge  in  addi- 
tion to  the  rates  Mr.  Acker  introduced  of  $6,250  per  year 
for  each  full-sized  railway  post-office  (car)  furnished. 
It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Mr.  Acker  made  this 
error  of  duplication,  for  the  items  (there  were  only  three), 

testimony,  Part  I,  p.  826. 
2Ibid.,  pp.  828,  829. 


A    VALUATION  OF  DATA  103 

which  combined  aggregated  $34,754,742.69  paid  to  the 
railroads,  were  clearly  presented. 

In  his  oral  testimony  before  the  postal  commission 
Mr.  Acker  several  times  spoke  of  the  compensation  given 
the  railroads  for  furnishing  full-sized  railway  post-office 
cars  as  a  rental.1  And  many  others  have  looked  upon 
the  payment  for  cars  in  the  same  light.  It  is  often 
urged  that  the  railroads  should  be  paid  no  more  for  the 
use  of  post-office  cars  than  the  cost  of  maintaining  and 
caring  for  them  and  a  fair  return  upon  their  original  cost. 
Such  payment  would  be  just  if  they  were  stationary  post- 
offices  and  the  government  provided  trackage  for  them. 
But  they  are  not  stationary  post-offices,  and  the  compensa- 
tion paid  for  them  must  be  regarded  as  in  part  a  payment 
for  hauling  them  with  their  load  and  the  railway  postal 
clerks  in  them.  It  was  so  considered  when  first  granted. 
This  additional  compensation  was  made  because  Congress 
recognized  that  the  separation  of  the  mail  in  the  cars 
necessitated  the  devotion  of  an  unusual  amount  of  car 
space  to  a  given  weight  of  mail.  On  this  point,  in  speak- 
ing for  the  subcommittee  of  the  Select  Committee  on 
Transportation  Routes  to  the  Seaboard,  which  had 
under  investigation  the  transportation  of  mail,  Senator 
Mitchell  said,  "  Soon  after  the  establishment  of  the 
post-office  car  service  it  became  evident  that  the  law 
of  1845,  under  which  the  payment  to  the  railroads 
for  carrying  the  mail  was  based  upon  weight,  did  not 
provide  for  the  post-office  car  service,  the  space  occu- 

^estimony,  Part  I,  pp.  826,  830  et  seq. 


1 04  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

pied,  instead  of  the  weight  carried,  being  the  proper 
measure  of  the  value  of  that  service."1  In  other  words, 
it  was  recognized  by  this  committee  that  a  wholly 
disproportionate  amount  of  dead  weight,  in  the  form 
of  car  with  its  fittings,  is  hauled  for  a  given  weight 
of  mail. 

In  early  days  the  mail  was  carried  in  closed 
pouches  in  baggage  cars,  and  the  compensation  was 
based  almost  solely  upon  weight.  A  single  form  of 
payment  continued  for  some  years  after  the  rail- 
way post-offices  were  introduced,  but  Congress  finally 
recognized  the  justice  of  the  contentions  of  the  rail- 
ways and  allowed  those  carrying  the  mails  in  postal 
cars  additional  pay  for  the  extra  service  rendered  in 
providing  sufficient  space  for  the  distribution  of  the 
mails  in  the  cars.  This  statement  is  only  in  part 
true.  No  extra  pay  is  allowed  for  apartment-car 
service,  and  this  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  the  mail 
is  separated  quite  as  minutely  in  the  apartment  as  in 
the  exclusive  mail  cars.  The  discrimination,  as  stated 
by  Mr.  Acker,  has  no  logical  basis.  But  whether  both 
should  be  paid  for,  or  neither  as  contended  by  Mr.  Acker, 
depends  upon  whether  the  compensation  in  the  aggregate 
is  excessive  or  not. 

It  may  not  be  going  too  far  afield  to  explain  very 
briefly  why  mail  requires  so  much  space,  notwithstanding 
a  great  amount  of  weight  can  be  put  away  in  a  small 

1  Senate  Report  No.  478,  p.  8,  XLIII  Congress,  first  session.  The 
italics  appear  in  the  report. 


A   VAL  UA  TION  OF  DA  TA  1 05 

compass.1  It  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  work  formerly 
done  in  the  post-office  proper  is  now  almost  wholly  done 
in  the  railway  post-offices.  The  work  of  separation  is 
now  performed  in  quarters  provided  by  the  railways 
instead  of  in  the  quarters  provided  by  the  Government. 
The  separation  is  made  in  the  cars  to  expedite  the 
mails,  and  is  so  effective  that  a  letter  now  reaches  its  desti- 
nation as  quickly  as  a  passenger  starting  from  the  same 
place  at  the  same  time.  The  long  delays  in  what  were 
known  as  the  distributing  post-offices  are  now  wholly  obvi- 
ated. The  shifting  of  the  place  of  separation  has  gone 
so  far  that  on  all  routes  of  any  importance  the  mail  is  sep- 
arated in  cars  or  apartments  of  cars,  and  on  the  important 
routes  the  mail  is  not  only  distributed  for  the  cities,  but  in 
many  cases  it  is  actually  made  ready  for  the  carriers  and 
substations  of  these  cities.  But  the  end  has  not  even  yet 
been  reached,  for  the  Postmaster-General  recently  said, 
"  It  is  the  intention  eventually  to  absorb  all  the  work  of 
city  distribution  into  the  railway  mail  service  whenever 
the  mails  can  be  expedited  thereby."2  It  is  this  minute 
separation  in  the  cars  that  requires  so  much  space.  The 
clerks  must  have  room  enough  to  work  effectively.  Some 
idea  of  the  space  required  may  be  inferred  when  it  is 
known  that  on  the  arrival  of  the  great  mail  trains  in 
Chicago  in  the  morning  the  letter  mail  for  the  business 

1  Mr.  James  E.  White,  general   superintendent  of  the  railway 
mail  service,  testified  before  the   Senate  Committee  on  Appropria- 
tions, on  April  22,  1808,  that  "it  is  estimated  that  the  average  weight 
of  mail   carried  in  a  sixty-foot  postal  car  is  4,000  pounds  daily." 
Senate  Report  No.  991,  p.  133,  LV  Congress,  second  session. 

2  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1895,  P-  39& 


106  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

portion  of  the  city  is  actually  ready  for  the  carriers,  and 
the  letters  for  the  remainder  of  the  city  are  sorted  and 
ready  to  go  at  once  to  their  respective  stations.  Chicago 
alone  thus  requires  about  175  separations,  and  this  means 
sufficient  space  to  hang  up  175  pouches  with  their  mouths 
open  so  that  the  mail  can  easily  be  thrown  into  them. 

The  first  paragraph  of  the  preamble  reads  as  follows: 
"The  law  determining  the  rates  for  hauling  mail  matter 
by  rail  has  not  been  modified  for  twenty  years,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  during  that  period,  according  to 
Poor's  Railroad  Manual,  freight  rates  have  declined 
about  thirty-five  (35)  per  cent,  and  passenger  rates 
have  declined  about  seventeen  and  one-half  (17%)  per 
cent,  and  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  after  the  daily 
average  weight  of  5,000  pounds  is  reached  the  same  rate 
is  allowed  per  ton  for  hauling  300,000  pounds  daily  as  is 
charged  for  only  2,000  pounds."1  There  are  three 
implications  in  this  section:  (i)  that  the  rates  have  not 
fallen,  because  the  law  fixing  them  has  not  been  modified 
in  twenty  years,  (2)  that  the  rates  paid  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  mail  should  have  been  reduced,  for  there  has 
been  a  decline  in  passenger  rates,  and  an  even  greater 
decline  in  freight  rates,  and  (3)  that  the  sliding  scale 
of  payments  should  be  extended  beyond  the  5,ooo-pound 
limit. 

It  appears  to  be  here  contended  that  mail  earnings 
should  have  been  reduced  hand  in  hand  with  freight  and 
passenger  earnings.  If  the  mail  pay  was  fair  in  1878, 

testimony,  Part  I,  p.  826. 


A   VAL  UA  TION  OF  DA  TA  1  07 

and  if  the  mail  service  has  not  been  improved  more 
rapidly  than  the  freight  and  passenger  service,  this 
position  would  appear  to  be  well  taken.  But  these  assump- 
tions are  not  in  consonance  with  the  facts.  The  rates 
established  by  the  act  of  1873  were  accepted  with  great 
reluctance.  After  the  reductions  of  1876  and  1878  they 
were  considered  so  far  from  remunerative  that  the  rail- 
roads felt  obliged  to  remove  all  trains  run  primarily  to 
expedite  the  mails.  Thus  the  rates  were  not  considered 
fair  in  1878.  It  must  also  be  kept  in  mind  that  no  other 
service  rendered  by  the  railroads  has  been  improved  so 
rapidly  as  the  mail  service,  both  in  the  matter  of  speed 
and  frequency.  This  is  so  well  known  that  it  need  not 
be  elaborated. 

But  it  must  not  be  inferred  because  stress  has  been 
laid  upon  the  great  improvements  made  in  the  mail  ser- 
vice that  there  has  been  no  decline  in  the  rates  paid  to 
the  railroads.  Although  there  has  been  no  reduction 
made  by  law  (or,  accurately,  by  new  legislation)  since 
1878,  the  compensation  given  the  railroads  for  carrying 
the  mail  has  fallen  very  rapidly.  This  has  been  brought 
about  by  the  sliding  scale  introduced  by  the  act  of  1873. 
The  rate  of  compensation  granted  decreases  rapidly  with 
an  increase  of  weight.  The  pay  for  transporting  mail  on 
roads  that  carry  200  pounds  per  day  was  fixed  at  117 
cents  per  ton  per  mile,  while  that  for  carrying  mail  on 
roads  that  transport  more  than  5,000  pounds  per  day  was 
fixed  at  but  5.8  cents  for  every  ton  in  excess  of  5,000 
pounds,  or  less  than  one-twentieth  of  the  first  rate.  The 


09  rua 

UNIVERSITY 


1 08  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

wholesale  principle  of  fixing  prices  never  received  more 
drastic  application.  During  the  last  twenty  years  the 
weight  of  the  mail  carried  on  practically  all  routes  has 
increased  rapidly.  This  increase  of  weight,  through  the 
operation  of  the  statute,  has  brought  about  a  great 
reduction  in  the  rates  of  compensation.  It  thus  appears 
that  the  cause  (viz.,  the  increase  in  tonnage)  which 
in  the  main  explains  the  decline  of  freight  rates  has 
also  brought  about  a  great  reduction  in  the  aver- 
age rate  of  pay  received  for  the  transportation  of 
mail.  I  venture  the  opinion  that  the  average  rate  of 
earnings  of  all  the  railroads  of  this  country  from  the 
transportation  of  mail  has  fallen  very  much  more  than 
the  average  rate  of  earnings  from  passenger  business, 
and  a  little  more  than  the  average  rate  from  freight. 
Some  data  are  already  at  hand  to  show  that  this  is  true, 
and  these  will  be  introduced,  so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  do 
so  within  reasonable  compass,  and  then  the  point  will 
be  passed  over,  for  the  Joint  Congressional  Commission 
on  the  Postal  Service,  as  has  already  been  stated,  has 
employed  a  statistician  who  will  ascertain  the  rate  paid 
the  railroads  per  ton  per  mile  by  years  since  1873.  The 
statement  I  have  just  made  as  to  the  relative  decline  of 
mail,  freight,  and  passenger  earnings  is  in  part  based 
upon  a  table  compiled  by  the  second  assistant  post- 
master-general showing  the  decline  in  the  rate  of  pay 
on  forty  postal  routes  from  1881  to  1897,*  and  in  part 

lrThis  table  is  so  large  that  it  will  not  be  introduced.  It  may  be 
found  in  Senate  Report  No.  991,  LV  Congress,  second  session,  pp. 
126,  127. 


A   VALUATION  OF  DATA 


109 


upon  data  furnished  by  the  Chicago  and  North-Western, 
the  Chicago,  Burlington,  and  Quincy,  and  the  Union 
Pacific  railway  companies.  In  the  subjoined  table  the 
relative  decline  in  rates  on  these  three  large  systems  is 
set  forth.1 


Companies. 

Decline  of 
Freight  Earn- 
ings per  Ton 
per  Mile. 

Decline  of 
Mail  Earnings 
per  Ton  per 
Mile. 

Decline  of  Pas- 
senger Earn- 
ings per  Pas- 
senger per 
Mile 

Decline  on  the  Union  Pacific, 
1888  to  1897  

Per  cent. 
K.8o 

Per  cent. 
2^.dO 

Per  cent. 
8.10 

Decline  on  the  Burlington, 
1879  to  1897 

2O  "37 

CC  26 

T-J  fin 

Decline  on  the  North-  West- 
ern. 1870  to  1807 

•^6  Id 

•5Q.7-2 

268? 

This  exhibit  affords  some  basis  for  the  contention 
that  mail  earnings  since  1879  of  all  the  railroads  of  the 
United  States  have  fallen  more  rapidly  than  have  the 
average  earnings  received  from  freight  and  passenger 
business. 

In  the  first  paragraph  of  the  preamble  of  the  National 
Board  of  Trade  it  is  implied  that  the  scope  of  the  sliding 
scale  should  be  extended.  As  the  law  now  stands  the 
railroads  receive  a  fixed  sum2  (5.8  cents  per  ton  per  mile) 
for  every  ton  carried  after  the  first  5,000  pounds.  As 
the  first  5,000  pounds  are  paid  for  at  the  rate  of  18.7 
cents  per  ton  per  mile,  the  much  lower  rate  of  pay  for 

1  For  the  data  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railway  Company  see  Testi- 
mony, Part  I,  p.  355  ;  the  "  North- Western,"  ibid.,  p.  198,  and  the 
"  Burlington,"  see  Changes  in  the  Rates  of  Charge  for  Railway  and 
other  Transportation,  pp.  20,  66.  The  mail  earnings  of  the  last 
named  company  were  obtained  from  its  officials. 

3  On  the  basis  of  weight. 


1 1 0  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

the  tonnage  in  excess  of  this  weight  causes  a  rapid 
decline  in  rates  up  to  weights  of  50,000  pounds,  the  rate 
paid  on  the  basis  of  weight  for  20,000  pounds  being  9 
cents  per  ton  per  mile,  and  for  50,000  pounds  but  7  cents, 
or  much  less  than  one-half  the  rate  received  for  the  first 
5,000  pounds.  For  greater  weights  than  50,000  pounds 
the  rates  decline  slowly.  It  is  contended  that  the  reduc- 
tions should  not  stop  at  the  5,ooo-pound  point,  but 
should  continue  indefinitely  in  consonance  with  the 
wholesale  principle.  In  opposition  to  this  point  of  view 
it  may  be  asserted  that  the  operation  of  the  established 
sliding  scale  operates  automatically  with  great  force  up 
to  weights  of  50,000  pounds,  and  that  beyond  this  point 
it  should  not  operate  with  equal  force,  for  there  are  lim- 
itations to  the  application  of  the  wholesale  principle  of 
fixing  prices,  and  on  routes  over  which  a  greater  weight 
is  daily  carried  a  special  service  in  point  of  speed  and 
frequency  of  service  is  maintained.  In  a  general  way  it 
may  be  said  that  until  a  weight  of  50,006  pounds  is 
reached  the  mail  business  is  an  adjunct  of  the  passenger 
business,  but  when  this  weight  is  exceeded  the  mail 
service,  as  the  weight  increases,  is  more  and  more  spe- 
cialized, and  quickly  develops  into  a  service  of  an  entirely 
different  order  in  both  speed  and  frequency.  The  advent 
of  the  new  order  is  marked  by  the  appearance  of  the 
fast  mail  train.  These  trains  depart  at  hours  that  will 
expedite  the  largest  amount  of  mail,  and  are  run  at  a 
very  high  rate  of  speed  wholly  or  almost  wholly  to  expe- 
dite the  mails. 


A   VAL UA TION  OF  DATA  III 

The  second  section  of  the  preamble  is  as  follows  : 

Since  1885  the  mileage  of  the  star  routes  has  increased 
fourteen  and  one-half  (14^)  per  cent,  and  the  average  weight 
of  mail  matter  materially  increased,  while  figures  show  that 
the  total  cost  of  hauling  has  slightly  decreased,  while  during 
the  same  period  the  mileage  of  railroad  routes  has  also 
increased  forty-three  and  one-third  (43^)  per  cent;  but  the 
cost  of  hauling  also  increased  from  fourteen  million  seven 
hundred  and  fifty-eight  thousand  four  hundred  and  ninety- 
five  dollars  ($14,758,495)  to  thirty-four  million  seven  hundred 
and  fifty-four  thousand  seven  hundred  and  forty-two  dollars 
and  sixty-nine  cents  ($34,754,742.69),  or  an  increase  of  over 
one  hundred  and  thirty-five  (135)  per  cent.1 

The  forms  of  service  here  compared  are  so  different 
that  nothing  of  value  can  result  from  their  being  con- 
trasted, but  as  no  attempt  is  now  being  made  to  pass 
upon  Mr.  Acker's  methods  of  determining  what  would 
be  fair  compensation  to  the  railroads,  we  shall  proceed 
at  once  to  the  valuation  of  the  data.  There  has  been 
the  increase  in  the  mileage  of  the  star  routes  noted  by 
Mr.  Acker,  but  I  know  of  no  statistics  which  support  his 
contention  that  the  weight  of  mail  matter  upon  the  star 
routes  has  materially  increased.2  On  the  contrary,  there 
are  very  good  reasons  for  supposing  that  the  weight  car- 

1  Testimony,  Part  I,  p.  826. 

8  In  reply  to  a  call  for  the  statistics  of  mail  carried  over  star 
routes,  Second  Assistant  Postmaster-General  W.  S.  Shallenberger, 
wrote:  "You  are  correct  in  your  supposition  that  the  Department 
does  not  know  the  weight  of  the  mail  carried  by  star  routes.  Answer- 
ing your  other  inquiries:  the  Department  has  no  statistics  bearing 
directly  upon  the  subject,  and  therefore  is  not  able  to  state  to  what 
extent,  if  any,  the  weight  of  mail  carried  by  star  routes  has  increased 
since  i88<;." 


1 1 2  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

ried  over  the  star  routes  is  much  less  now  than  in  1885, 
for  the  character  of  these  routes  has  very  largely  changed, 
and  because  there  has  been  but  little  increase  in  the  rural 
population  during  the  last  decade  and  a  half.  During 
the  last  two  decades  the  star  service  has  been  trans- 
formed. The  long  routes  connecting  important  centers, 
of  which  there  were  many  in  the  West,  have  been  sup- 
planted by  railroads.  The  change  that  has  taken  place 
was  noted  long  ago  by  second  assistant  postmaster- 
general  Thomas  J.  Brady,  who  said  in  1880:  "The  star 
service,  viewed  as  the  principal  means  of  mail  transporta- 
tion, is,  of  course,  like  all  primitive  modes  of  intercourse, 
doomed  to  give  way  and  disappear  before  the  steady 
march  of  'the  locomotive.  Each  year  the  number  of 
great  star  routes  will  become  less  and  the  distance 
traversed  by  them  shortened/'1  From  1885  to  l%9%  the 
mileage  of  these  routes  increased  but  14.6  per  cent, 
while  the  number  of  routes  increased  76  per  cent,  thus 
showing  that  the  average  length  has  greatly  decreased.2 
The  star  mileage  is  now  almost  wholly  made  up  of  short 
stubs  connecting  railway  stations  with  the  rural  post- 
offices.  The  significance  of  this  change  from  long  stage 
lines  connecting  considerable  bodies  of  people  to  routes 
of  a  few  miles  in  length  connecting  the  railway  and  the 
country  post-office  is  found  in  the  fact  that  over  the 
former  large  weights  of  mail  were  carried,  while  over 
the  latter  the  weight  is  insignificant. 

Report  of  Postmaster-General,  1880,  p.  76. 
2  Ibid.,  1885,  p.  241,  and  ibid.,  1898,  p.  290. 


A    VALUATION  OF  DATA  113 

As  stated  by  Mr.  Acker,  the  total  cost  of  carrying  the 
mail  on  the  star  routes  has  slightly  decreased  since  1885. 
This  is  as  it  should  be.  For  the  reasons  that  have  just 
been  introduced  the  cost  of  this  service  should  have 
declined,  for  the  long  routes  in  the  far  West  where  ser- 
vice was  exceedingly  expensive  have  been  very  largely 
supplanted.  At  one  time  there  was  a  single  route  that 
cost  the  Government  at  the  rate  of  $1,750,000  per  annum.1 
It  is  also  a  matter  of  common  notoriety  that  the  railway 
mail  service  has  constantly  improved,  while  the  star  route 
service  has  as  constantly  deteriorated  until  the  former  has 
become  a  source  of  pride  and  the  latter  an  object  of  humil- 
iation. The  star  route  service  should  not  be  used  as  a 
basis  of  comparison,  for  it  is  now  very  often  performed 
for  less  than  cost,  the  loss  being  borne  by  poor  and  igno- 
rant men  of  whom  advantage  has  been  taken.2  On  the 
two  points  just  discussed,  the  Postmaster-General  in  his 
latest  report  expressed  himself  most  emphatically.  He 
said,  "As  a  general  proposition,  a  reduction  in  the  cost 
of  conducting  the  public  business  would  seem  to  be  a 
desirable  end  to  attain.  But  it  becomes  a  serious  ques- 
tion whether  this  has  not  been  carried  so  far  in  respect  of 
star  routes  as  to  impair  the  efficiency  of  the  service.  Cer- 
tainly the  present  system  of  speculative  bidding  is  attended 
with  evils  which  are  discreditable  to  the  Government. 

1  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  were  paid  at  this  rate  for  carrying  the  mail 
between  the  termini  of  the  Union  Pacific  and  Central  Pacific  railroads. 
Ibid.,  1868,  p.  7. 

2For  a  description  of  how  this  is  done,  see  Report  of  Postmaster- 
General,  1898,  pp.  291,  292. 


1 1 4  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

.  .  .  I  believe  that  a  considerably  larger  sum  for 
star  transportation  would  be  well  expended  if  it  resulted 
in  improved  equipment,  as  many  of  the  horses  and  vehi- 
cles now  used  in  carrying  the  mails  present  such  a  dilap- 
idated and  disreputable  appearance  as  to  be  a  strong 
argument  in  condemnation  of  the  present  system."1  Those 
who  have  had  no  opportunity  of  contrasting  the  railway 
mail  with  the  star  route  service  can  gain  an  idea,  although 
a  wholly  inadequate  one,  of  the  superiority  of  the  former 
over  the  latter  by  comparing  the  railway  mail  with  the 
wagon  service  of  their  own  city. 

The  mileage  of  railway  routes  has  increased  a  little 
more  than  was  stated  by  Mr.  Acker.  Instead  of  increas- 
ing 43  J^  percent,  it  increased  44.4  per  cent,  or  from  121,- 
032  miles  in  1885  to  174, 777  miles  in  1898.  Mr.  Acker 
gives  the  mileage  in  the  latter  year  as  167,755  miles,  but 
this  statement  is  incorrect.  This  will  be  quickly  seen  by 
any  one  who  will  read  pages  301  and  630  of  the  Report 
of  the  Postmaster-General  for  1898.  On  the  latter  page, 
which  is  the  reference  cited  by  Mr.  Acker,  the  following 
statement  appears  :  "The  miles  of  railroad  covered  by 
full  railway  post-office  lines  was  42,656.99;  by  apartment 
railway  post-office  lines,  1 13,776.28;  by  electric  and  cable 
car  lines,  379.47;  by  steamboat  lines,  10,942.47;  making 
a  total  mileage  of  167,755.21  covered  by  railway  post- 
office  service."  No  one  should  have  been  misled  by  the 
erroneous  final  statement,  and  especially  not  as  almost 
immediately  the  following  statement  appears  :  "In  addi- 

albid.,  pp.  291,  29^ 


A   VALUATION  OF  DATA  115 

tion  to  this  there  was  a  closed  pouch  service  on  18,- 
970.38  miles  of  railroad."1 

The  absurdity  of  comparing  the  star  route  and  rail- 
way service  on  the  basis  of  aggregate  lineal  mileage 
simply  must  appear  to  any  one,  for  speed,  weight,  and 
accommodations  furnished  are  entirely  neglected.  Upon 
the  whole  it  may  be  safely  said  that  the  speed  of  con- 
veyance on  star  routes  has  actually  decreased,  for  the 
great  stage  lines,  over  which  the  mails  were  carried 
at  a  high  rate  of  speed  considering  the  mode  of  con- 
veyance, have  practically  disappeared.  This,  as  is  well 
known,  is  in  striking  contrast  with  the  railway  mail 
service,  where  the  speed  of  trains  has  been  constantly 
accelerated.  As  has  already  been  stated,  the  average 
weight  of  mail  carried  on  the  star  routes  has  probably 
decreased.  This  is  also  in  striking  contrast  with  the 
railway  mail  service,  where  the  weight  has  increased 
by  leaps  and  bounds.  Some  idea  of  the  increase  of 
weight  carried  may  be  gained  by  an  examination  of 
the  table  on  the  following  page,  which  covers  several  of 
the  leading  railway  routes. 

This  table  makes  it  apparent  that  there  has  been  a 
very  great  increase  in  the  weight  of  the  mail  carried  by 
the  railroads.  The  increase  could  be  shown  more  fully, 
but  the  best  presentation  that  could  now  be  made  would 
only  be  illustrative,  so  nothing  more  will  be  attempted, 
as  in  a  short  time  the  Report  of  the  Joint  Congressional 

1  The  aggregate  of  the  railway  mileage  as  here  given  is  175,403.65 
miles,  but  I  prefer  to  use  the  mileage  I  have  given,  as  it  covers  the 
entire  mileage  upon  which  compensation  has  been  adjusted. 


n6 


RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 


TABLE  SHOWING  INCREASE  OF  WEIGHTS  ON  CERTAIN 
POSTAL  ROUTES.1 


Route. 

Average  Number  of  Pounds 
Carried  over  the  Whole 
Route  each  Day. 

1885 

1898 

Boston-Albany  

38,986 
99,001 
136,401 
91,679 
69,142 
54,621 
37,031 
23,990 

111,105 
250,449 

309,294 
183,876 
I53»36o 
120,030 
86,746 
65,394 

New  York-Buffalo  __     -__  ___ 

New  York-Philadelphia 

Philadelphia-Pittsburgh 

Buffalo-Chicago       -  

Chicago-  Burlington  

Burlincrton-Union  Pacific  Transfer 

Union  Pacific  Transfer-Ogden 

Commission  on  Postal  Affairs  will  be  printed,  and  it  may 
be  expected  to  show  the  increase  in  the  ton  mileage  car- 
ried by  the  railroads  in  the  aggregate  for  a  long  series  of 
years.2  As  has  already  been  stated,  there  has  been  in 
all  probability  only  a  slight,  if  any  increase  at  all,  in 
the  ton  mileage  carried  on  the  star  routes.  No  infor- 
mation has  been  collected  by  the  Post-Office  Depart- 
ment that  would  make  a  positive  statement  to  this 
effect  possible,  but  there  is  very  good  indirect  evidence 
that  points  to  this  conclusion.  It  is  a  patent  fact  that 
during  the  last  two  decades  the  railroads  have  reached 
all  considerable  bodies  of  population.  From  this  it 
follows  that  the  star  route  service  has  been  progres- 
sively restricted  to  the  rural  districts.  During  the  last 
two  decades  the  increase  of  population  in  this  country 

1  This  information  was  obtained  from  the  Reports  of  the  Post- 
master-general, Table  H. 

2  For  this  information,  see  Table  XII,  p.  207. 


A   VALUATION  OF  DATA  117 

has  been  in  the  urban  centers.  This  is  to  say,  the  cities, 
towns,  and  villages  have  increased  in  population  much 
more  rapidly  than  the  agricultural  sections.  During 
the  decade  ending  with  the  year  1890  the  urban  popu- 
lation increased  twice  as  rapidly  as  the  rural,  and  as 
the  same  forces  have  remained  at  work,  it  may  be 
assumed  that  at  least  the  same  rate  of  increase  has 
been  maintained  during  this  decade.1  From  these  facts 
it  seems  fair  to  assume  that  there  has  been  no  increase 
in  the  weight  carried  by  the  star  routes,  but  that  there 
has  been  a  very  heavy  increase  in  the  weight  trans- 
ported by  the  railroads. 

The  compensation  received  by  the  railroads  for 
carrying  the  mail  has  not  increased  anywhere  near  so 
rapidly  as  represented.  In  the  preamble  it  is  stated 
that  the  railroads  received  $14,758,495  in  1885.  This 
is  the  sum  they  were  paid  for  special  facilities  and  on 
the  basis  of  weight,2  but  this  amount  does  not  include 
the  payment  for  railway  post-office  cars.  The  total 
sum  paid  the  railroads  for  all  forms  of  service  during 
the  fiscal  year  1885  was  $16,627, 983^  not  $14,758,495, 
as  stated  in  the  preamble.  Before  appearing  before 
the  Postal  Commission,  in  behalf  of  the  National  Board 
of  Trade,  Mr.  Acker  discovered  the  error  just  pointed 

1  Eleventh  Census,  Report  on  Population,  Part  I,  p.  Ixix. 

a  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1898,  p.  302. 

•Ibid.,  1898,  p.  302.  If  the  sums  withheld  from  the  Pacific  rail- 
roads for  the  transportation  of  mail  during  1885  be  included,  the 
total  expenditure  for  railroad  service  was  $17,968,209.  For  the  sums 
withheld  from  Pacific  railroads,  see  Report  of  the  Postmaster-Gen- 
eral, 1885,  p.  905. 


1 1 8  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

out,  but  in  attempting  to  correct  it  made  another. 
Before  the  Commission  he  stated  that  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation and  railway  post-office  cars  for  1885  was 
$17,336,512.  This  amount  was  not  paid  during  1885; 
it  was  paid  in  I886.1  In  citing  the  amount  received 
by  the  railroads  during  1898,  Mr.  Acker  leaves  the 
reports  of  the  postmasters-general  for  Senate  Report 
No.  991  on  the  mail  service,  and  on  page  134  finds 
that  the  railroads  received  $34,754,742  for  all  forms 
of  mail  service  during  the  fiscal  year  1898.  This  sum 
is  larger  than  that  reported  by  the  Postmaster-General, 
namely,  $34, 379, 226. 98,2  which  is  the  sum  that  was 
actually  expended.  As  the  statements  for  both  1885 
and  1898  made  by  Mr.  Acker  of  the  aggregate  com- 
pensation received  by  the  railroads  are  inaccurate,  the 
contention  made  in  the  preamble  that  there  was  an 
increase  of  135  per  cent,  in  the  compensation  received 
by  the  railroads  from  1885  to  1898  is  incorrect.  The 
actual  increase  was  106  per  cent,  if  the  sums  with- 
held from  the  Pacific  railroads  be  left  out  of  consid- 
eration, and  but  94  per  cent,  if  these  sums  be  included. 

The  data  contained  in  the  preamble  and  resolution 
presented  to  the  Joint  Congressional  Commission  on 
Postal  Affairs  by  Mr.  Finley  Acker  have  now  been 
valuated.  It  is  believed  that  it  has  been  conclusively 
shown  that,  with  a  very  few  unimportant  exceptions, 

1  Ibid.,  1898,  p.  302. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  16.     To  obtain  the  total  expenditures  for  railway  mail 
service  $515,263.42  should  be  added,  for  this  sum  was  withheld  from 
the  Pacific  railroads  during  the  fiscal  year  1898.     Ibid.,  p.  302. 


A   VAL UA TION  OF  DATA  119 

the  data  used  are  very  inaccurate.  All  the  principal 
arguments  that  the  compensation  granted  the  railroads 
for  carrying  the  mail  is  excessive  are  grounded  on  the 
assumption  that  the  railroads  on  the  average  receive 
forty  cents  per  ton  per  mile  for  transporting  the  mail. 
This  assumption  is  merely  an  estimate  based  upon 
the  most  unsatisfactory  data.  If  the  reasonableness 
of  the  pay  granted  the  railroads  is  to  be  approached 
from  the  comparative  standpoint,  it  becomes  necessary 
first  of  all  to  obtain  an  accurate  table  of  railroad  earn- 
ings per  ton  per  mile  from  the  mail  business.  A  table 
covering  the  period  from  1873  is  now  being  prepared 
for  the  use  of  the  Commission  on  Postal  Affairs,  and 
it  is  hoped  that  it  will  be  embodied  in  its  final  report. 
While  it  is  impossible,  with  the  data  now  at  hand, 
to  prepare  a  table  entirely  satisfactory,1  it  is  possible 
to  prepare  one  that  will  serve  as  a  good  working  basis, 
for  we  know  the  average  weight  carried  over  the  full 
length  of  each  postal  route  each  day  and  the  compen- 
sation granted  for  the  service.2 

1  This  follows  because  of  the  system  of  weighing  now  in  vogue. 
The  mails  are  weighed  but  once  in  four  years,  and  the  weight 
is  ascertained  three  or  four  months  before  the  beginning  of  the 
four-year  period  to  which  it  applies,  and  no  corrections  are  made. 
From  this  it  follows  that  the  railways  are  not  given  credit  for  the 
full  weight  they  carry. 

3  When  confronted  with  evidence  he  could  not  impeach  that  the 
railways  received  but  12.56  cents  per  ton  per  mile  for  carrying  mail 
instead  of  40  cents,  Mr.  Acker  at  once  prepared  a  new  argument 
which  he  declared  warranted  a  larger  reduction  than  his  original 
argument.  It  was  so  fanciful,  however,  that  it  has  received  but 
scant  attention. 


REASONALBLE  RAILWAY  MAIL  PAY:  AN 
EXAMINATION  OF  THE  TESTIMONY 
OF  PROFESSOR  HENRY  C.  ADAMS 


REASONABLE    RAILWAY   MAIL    PAY.1 

IN  a  previous  article  on  railway  mail  compensation 
I  intimated  that  at  a  later  time  I  hoped  to  discuss 
what  may  be  considered  "  fair "  pay  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  mail.  As  an  elaborate  discussion  of  this  ques- 
tion has  just  been  submitted  to  the  Postal  Commission 
by  Professor  Henry  C.  Adams,  I  shall  forego  an  ex- 
tended statement  of  my  own,  and  content  myself  with 
a  review  of  his  testimony. 

Before  stating  the  fundamental  principles  which  should 
govern  rate-making,  Professor  Adams  thought  it  necessary 
to  clear  the  field  of  certain  preconceptions  on  this  sub- 
ject that  seem  to  have  become  firmly  rooted  in  the 
minds  of  many  witnesses  and  of  several  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission.  With  but  few  exceptions  the 
witnesses  who  appeared  before  the  Commission  based 
their  judgment  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  mail  pay 
on  the  cost  of  rendering  the  service.  One  represen- 
tative of  the  railroads  after  another  contended  that 
the  present  compensation  is  not  excessive,  because  it 
costs  nearly  as  much  to  carry  the  mail  as  the  rail- 

1  This  chapter  was  reprinted  from  the  Journal  of  Political  Econ- 
omy, March  number  of  1900.  The  citations  have  been  changed 
from  the  pamphlets  in  which  Professor  Adams's  testimony  orig- 
inally appeared  to  the  volumes  in  which  the  testimony  taken  by 
the  Postal  Commission  was  finally  printed.  When  this  chapter 
was  originally  printed  Professor  Adams  had  not  submitted  all  of  his 
testimony. 

123 


1 24  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

roads  receive  from  the  Government  for  performing  the 
service.  The  line  of  argument  adopted  by  the  rail- 
roads is  difficult  of  explanation,  for  the  accounting 
officers  of  the  railways  have  more  than  once  placed 
themselves  on  record  that  it  is  impossible  to  separate 
accurately  even  passenger  train  from  freight  train  expen- 
ditures, and  consequently  they  would  concede  that  an 
attempt  further  to  distribute  the  cost  of  running  passen- 
ger trains  to  mail,  express,  and  passengers  would  be 
even  more  unsatisfactory.  Perhaps  the  men  who  repre- 
sented the  railroads  before  the  Commission  were  not 
familiar  with  railway  accounting.  But  it  also  occurred 
to  me,  as  I  read  the  testimony,  that  the  railway  men 
may  have  attempted  to  justify  the  compensation  they 
received  on  the  basis  of  cost  of  service  because  they 
felt  that  this  was  the  line  of  argument  the  majority 
of  the  Commission  wanted.  And  whatever  may  be 
said  of  their  attempts  from  a  theoretical  standpoint, 
all  will  have  to  admit  that  the  arguments  based  on 
the  cost  of  service  were  the  ones  that  found  favor 
with  the  Commission.  Indeed,  some  members  of  the 
Commission  found  it  difficult  to  give  a  respectful  hear- 
ing to  those  who  were  not  prepared  to  state  just  how 
much  it  cost  to  haul  a  ton  of  mail  a  mile. 

While  admitting  that  the  simplicity  of  the  rule 
that  rates  should  approximate  the  cost  of  service 
makes  it  attractive,  Professor  Adams  declared  that  he 
could  not  accept  the  doctrine  that  reasonable  rates 
must  approximate  the  cost  of  service,  because  (i)  it 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA T  MAIL  PAT  125 

is  impossible  to  ascertain  the  cost  of  service  with  suf- 
ficient accuracy  for  this  purpose,  and  (2)  because  the 
railways  do  not  attempt  to  adjust  the  rate  on  any  com- 
modity to  the  cost  of  moving  that  particular  com- 
modity.1 

After  having  disposed  in  this  summary  way  of  the 
arguments  based  on  the  cost  of  service,  Professor  Adams, 
for  the  time  being,  passes  over  the  statements  of  the 
railroad  men  whose  arguments  are  based  on  comparisons,2 
and  presents  his  ''fundamental  principles  relative  to  rail- 
way mail  compensation."  He  says,  quoting  his  words  as 
far  as  possible,  that  the  points  which  will  be  submitted  in 
connection  with  a  consideration  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples relative  to  railway  mail  pay  are  ( I )  that  European 
experience  relative  to  railway  mail  transportion  is  not 
pertinent  to  the  United  States,  (2)  that  the  problem  of 
railway  mail  pay  must  be  approached  as  one  of  compen- 
sation, that  word  being  given  its  regular  interpretation, 
(3)  that  in  view  of  the  nature  and  history  of  the  postal 
service  the  claim  of  public  utility  in  determining  what  is 
reasonable  compensation  cannot  be  ignored,  and  (4)  that 
the  possibility  of  introducing  economies  into  the  business 
of  transportation  depends  upon  the  increase  in  the  vol- 
ume of  traffic,  from  which,  in  the  absence  of  countervail- 
ing considerations,  it  follows  that  a  form  of  traffic  which 
increases  most  rapidly  through  a  series  of  years  should 

testimony,  Part  II,  pp.  4-7. 

a  Most  of  the  railroad  men  compared  their  earnings  from  mail 
with  those  from  express.  This  was  the  favorite  comparison,  it  being 
held  that  the  two  services  were  similar  in  many  respects. 


1 26  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

show  a  relatively  more  rapid  decrease  in  charges  as 
compared  with  other  traffic. 

Now  let  us  examine  these  fundamental  principles. 
Professor  Adams  says  in  explanation  of  the  first  one  that: 
"  Very  little  can  be  gained  from  European  experience 
respecting  the  questions  of  compensation  to  railways  for 
transporting  mail  on  account  of  the  fact  that,  for  one 
reason  or  another,  European  governments  are  interested 
in  the  financial  success  of  the  railways.  Where  the  rail- 
ways are  the  property  of  the  government,  as  in  Prussia, 
every  item  of  railway  expenditure  appears  as  an  appro- 
priation in  the  budget  of  the  state,  and  it  is  merely  a 
matter  of  accounting,  so  far  as  the  people  who  pay  taxes 
and  railway  charges  are  concerned,  whether  the  railways 
transport  the  mail  for  nothing,  and  thus  enable  the  Post- 
Office  Department  to  show  a  surplus,  or  whether  the 
Post-Office  Department  is  charged  an  arbitrary  rate  for 
carrying  the  mail,  which  would  enable  the  railway  depart- 
ment to  increase  the  surplus  by  that  amount.1 

If  by  European  experience  Professor  Adams  means 
simply  continental  practice,  no  one  probably  will  be  dis- 
posed to  find  fault  with  his  contentions.  But  popularly, 
at  least,  Great  Britain  forms  a  part  of  Europe,  and, 
therefore,  Professor  Adams  should  not  have  directed  his 
investigation  simply  to  the  continent  of  Europe.  In 
Great  Britain  the  relations  of  the  Post-Office  Depart- 
ment and  the  railroads  are  very  much  the  same  as  in  this 
country.  In  both  countries  there  is  private  ownership  of 

1  Ibid.,  p.  7. 


REASONABLE  RAIL WA Y  MAIL  PAY  I2f 

railways.  And  further,  our  principles  of  jurisprudence 
do  not  depart  greatly  from  those  of  English  jurispru- 
dence. Because  of  these  considerations  it  seems  to  me 
especial  attention  should  have  been  directed  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  British  Government  deals  with  the  rail- 
ways. And  failing  to  find  in  Great  Britain  sufficient 
confirmation  that  the  payments  of  our  Government  are 
either  too  high  or  too  low,  Professor  Adams  could  much 
more  profitably  have  turned  his  attention  to  Canada  than 
to  the  continent  of  Europe.  Having  thus  neglected  the 
practice  of  those  countries  whose  national  and  industrial 
life  are  adjusted  to  the  same  principles  as  our  own,  I 
cannot  regard  Professor  Adams's  treatment  of  his  first 
point  as  satisfactory. 

Although  not  much  can  be  learned  from  British  prac- 
tice as  to  what  constitutes  reasonable  compensation  in 
dollars  and  cents,  a  great  deal  can  be  learned  as  to  what 
is  a  fair  method  of  ascertaining  that  to  which  the  railways 
are  entitled.  In  this  country  the  schedule  of  pay  is  fixed 
arbitrarily  by  act  of  Congress.  I  say  arbitrarily  because 
the  railways  have  no  direct  voice  in  determining  the  pay- 
ments. In  Great  Britain,  on  the  contrary,  they  partici- 
pate in  fixing  the  payments,  for  any  company  which  does 
not  regard  the  payments  awarded  by  the  Postmaster- 
General  as  adequate,  can  call  arbitrators.  The  nineteenth 
section  of  the  Act  of  1838  reads  : 

Every  railway  company  shall  be  entitled  to  reasonable 
remuneration  for  any  services  performed  by  them  in  pursuance 
of  this  act  with  respect  to  the  conveyance  of  mails,  and  such 


128  RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE 

remuneration  shall  be  paid  by  the  Postmaster-General.  And 
any  differences  between  the  Postmaster-General  and  any  rail- 
way company  as  to  the  amount  of  such  remuneration,  or  as  to 
any  other  question  arising  under  this  act,  shall  be  decided  by 
arbitration1  in  the  manner  provided  by  the  act  of  the  session 
of  the  first  and  second  years  of  the  reign  of  her  present 
majesty,  Chapter  XCVIII,  or,  at  the  option  of  such  railway 
company,  by  the  [railway]  commissioners.2 

In  regard  to  specific  information  as  to  what  is  re- 
garded as  fair  pay  for  conveying  the  mail  but  little  infor- 
mation is  obtainable,  for  in  Great  Britain  the  Postmaster- 
General  does  not  make  public  the  contracts  he  enters 
upon  with  each  of  the  railways.  During  the  summer  of 
1898,  the  Second  Assistant  Postmaster-General,  W.  S. 
Shallenberger,  was  sent  abroad  by  Postmaster- General 
Charles  Emory  Smith  to  make  a  careful  investigation 
into  the  character  and  cost  of  railway  mail  transportation. 
In  reporting  to  the  Postmaster-General  what  he  learned 
in  Great  Britain,  Mr.  Shallenberger  says: 

In  reply  to  a  question  as  to  what  was  regarded  a  reason- 
able compensation  for  a  mail  train,  I  was  told  that  it  must  not 
in  any  event  exceed  the  revenue  derived  by  the  railway  com- 
pany from  an  average  passenger  train  of  like  size 

One  of  the  contracts  that  I  was  permitted  to  see  provided  that 
the  Postmaster- General  and  his  officers  may  require  the  com- 
pany to  provide  and  run  any  express  or  special  trains  for  the 

1  In  case  the  Postmaster-General  and  a  railway  company  cannot 
agree  as  to  what  is  fair  compensation,  they  may  refer  the  matter  to 
ihe  award  of  two  persons,  one  to  be  named  by  the  Postmaster-Gen- 
eral and  the  other  by  the  company,  and  if  these  two  persons  cannot 
agree,  then  to  a  third  person,  to  be  appointed  by  the  first  two  pre- 
viously to  their  entering  upon  the  inquiry. 

2  Report  of  Postmaster-General,  1898,  p.  318. 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA T  MAIL  PAT  1 29 

conveyance  of  mails,  etc.,  for  a  payment  at  the  rate  of  $s.  6d. 
for  each  and  every  mile  such  express  or  special  train  shall 
travel.  This  would  be  at  the  rate  of  85  cents  per  running 
mile.  In  the  testimony  given  by  this  office  before  the  sub- 
committee of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Appropriations,  in 
May  last,  the  cost  per  running  mile  of  one  of  our  full  railway 
post-office  cars,  including  transportation  pay,  was  estimated 
at  25^  cents.  Considering  the  small  size  and  light  weight 
of  the  cars  on  English  roads,  it  is  perhaps  fair  to  assume  that 
three  of  our  full  [sized]  railway  post-office  cars  would  equal 
the  average  special  train  provided  for  in  the  contract  which  I 
have  named.1 

If  the  terms  of  the  contract  just  cited  are  typical,  it 
appears  that  the  compensation  given  the  railroads  in 
Great  Britain  for  running  special  mail  trains  is  somewhat 
higher  than  it  is  here.  In  comparing  payments  it  must 
also  be  held  in  mind  that  there  the  conditions  of  the 
service  are  not  so  onerous  as  with  us.  In  Great  Britain 
the  Post-Office  Department  erects  and  maintains  at  its 
own  expense  all  mail  cranes  and  catchers ;  the  railways 
are  also  relieved  from  conveying  the  mails  to  and  from 
the  post-offices,  and  when  railway  post-office  clerks  are 
injured  in  railway  accidents,  and  judgment  is  obtained 
against  the  company,  the  Post-Office  Department  is 
liable  at  least  for  one-half  the  damage ;  and  finally,  but 
most  important  of  all,  the  railways  are  not  expected  to 
run  their  mail  trains  at  a  higher  rate  of  speed  than  their 
best  passenger  trains  maintain.2 

1  Ibid.,  p.  320.    The  italics  are  mine. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  319. 


1 30  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

In  Canada,  as  in  Great  Britain,  the  railways  are  not 
paid  on  the  basis  of  the  average  weight  carried,  so  no 
direct  comparisons  on  the  basis  of  weight  can  be  made 
with  our  payments.  From  information  collected  in  the 
autumn  of  1898  for  the  Postal  Commission  by  Mr.  V.  J. 
Bradley,  superintendent  of  the  railway  mail  service  of 
the  New  York  post-office,  it  appears  that  the  cost  per  mile 
of  railway  mail  transportation  in  Canada,  regardless  of 
facilities  furnished  or  weight  carried,  was  8.9  cents.1  In 
the  United  States  for  the  fiscal  year  1898  it  was  10.93 
cents.2  Although  on  its  face  this  comparison  seems 
unfavorable  to  our  railways,  it  is  in  reality  very  favorable. 
This  is  true  for  several  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  Mr. 
Bradley,  in  ascertaining  the  average  amount  paid  in 
Canada  per  mile  for  railway  mail  transportation,  did  not 
include  the  payment  of  about  $650,000  to  the  Canadian 
Pacific  by  the  imperial  government  for  the  overland 
transmission  of  mail  to  the  Pacific.3  In  the  second  place, 
the  average  weight  of  mail  carried  in  Canada  is  insignifi- 
cant in  comparison  with  the  average  weight  transported 
here.  In  this  country  most  of  the  railways  radiating 
from  the  large  cities  run  fast  mail  trains,  largely  or 
exclusively  devoted  to  mail,  while  in  Canada  there  are 
no  fast  mail  trains,  and  in  fact  there  is  but  a  single  route 
on  which  full  railway  post-office  cars  are  run.4  It  thus 

testimony,  Part  I,  p.  485. 
2  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1898,  p.  301. 
•Testimony,  Part  I,  p.  484. 

4  This  is  the  Montreal-Toronto  route,  which  is  333  miles  in  length. 
The  cars  on  this  route  are  forty  feet  in  length,  and  there  are  two 


REASONABLE  RAIL WA T  MAIL  PAY  131 

appears  that  for  baggage  and  apartment  car  service  the 
railways  of  Canada  receive  almost  as  much  per  mile  as 
our  railways  receive  for  service  that  consists  largely  of 
full-sized  Post-Office  cars  and  full  trains.  In  Canada  the 
conditions  under  which  the  railways  transport  the  mail 
are  not  so  burdensome  as  in  this  country.  There,  as  a 
general  rule,  the  side  and  terminal  messenger  service  is 
performed  by  the  Post-Office  Department  at  its  own 
expense.  In  case  the  railroads  perform  this  service,  they 
generally  receive  extra  compensation  for  doing  it.  In 
Canada  the  railways  are  also  almost  wholly  relieved  from 
the  porterage  of  the  mails  at  the  stations.  The  railways 
render  some  assistance,  but  about  90  per  cent,  of  this 
work  is  done  by  postal  employes.  At  stations  where 
transfer  agents  are  assigned  by  the  Post-Office  Depart- 
ment they  do  not  merely  supervise  the  transfers,  as  in 
this  country,  but  lug  the  mail  as  well.1 

Now  let  us  pass  to  Professor  Adams's  second  funda- 
mental principle  for  determining  what  is  fair  pay  for 
transporting  the  mail.  In  his  testimony  before  the 
Postal  Commission  he  says: 

The  next  point  is  that  the  problem  of  railway  mail  pay 
must  be  approached  as  one  of  compensation,  that  word  being 
given  its  regular  interpretation. 

The  service  rendered  by  the  railways  in  carrying  the  mail 

round  trips  made  daily,  except  Sunday,  when  a  single  round  trip  is 
made.    To  maintain  this  service  seven  cars  are  furnished,  four  in  use 
and  three  in  reserve. — Testimony,  Part  I,  p.  482. 
1  Ibid.,  pp.  482,  483. 


1 3 2  RAIL  WA  r  MAIL  SER  VICE 

is  of  the  same  sort  as  that  of  carrying  passengers,  express,  or 
freight.  The  fact  that  in  the  case  of  mail  the  Government  is 
the  agency  through  which  the  service  is  rendered  does  not 
change  the  nature  of  the  service.  Such  I  understand  to  be 
the  principle  that  must  be  recognized  by  your  Commission. 
This  is  implied  in  the  Constitution  itself,  and  has  been 
expressed  in  many  state  decisions.  Much  testimony  might 
be  submitted  to  show  that  the  above  situation  is  correct,  and 
that  consequently  the  principle  of  compensation  should  be 
acknowledged  in  discussing  the  question  of  adequate  pay.  .  .  . 
In  1874  a  select  committee  of  the  United  States  Senate  was 
appointed  to  inquire  into  "the  nature  and  extent  of  the  obli- 
gations subsisting  between  the  railway  companies  and  the  postal 
service  of  the  country."  This  committee  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  Government  can  compel  them  [the  railways] 
to  transport  the  public  mails,  but  that  "reasonable  and  just 
compensation  should  be  paid  for  such  service."  In  this  regard, 
as  also  in  the  case  of  condemnation  of  a  railway  which  refuses 
to  carry  the  mail,  the  argument  of  the  committee  proceeded 
upon  the  principle  enunciated  by  the  fifth  section  of  the 
amendments  to  the  Constitution,  which  reads:  "Nor  shall  pri- 
vate property  be  taken  for  public  use  without  just  compensa- 
tion." It  seems  evident,  then,  that  the  question  of  railway 
pay  for  postal  service  among  peoples  who  enjoy  English  juris- 
prudence is  a  question  of  compensation,  and  that  all  those 
principles  of  law  and  political  science  that  cluster  about  the 
word  "  compensation "  are  pertinent,  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  to  the  problem  in  hand.1 

Probably  no  one  will  be  disposed  to  question  Pro- 
fessor Adams's  second  fundamental  principle,  and  prob- 
ably there  are  but  few  who  would  dignify  the  simple 

testimony,  Part  II,  pp.  8  and  9. 


REASONABLE  RAIL WA T  MAIL  PAY  133 

contention  "that  the  problem  of  railway  mail  pay  must 
be  approached  as  one  of  compensation,"  by  calling  it  a 
fundamental  principle.  It  seems  to  me  Professor  Adams 
might  fairly  have  assumed  that  the  members  of  the  Postal 
Commission  would  freely  grant  that  "  the  principle  of 
compensation  should  be  acknowledged  in  discussing  the 
question  of  adequate  pay,"  for  compensation  and  ade- 
quate pay  mean  the  same  thing.  All  are  agreed,  I 
believe,  that  the  railways  should  receive  compensation 
or  adequate  pay  for  the  services  they  render.  From  the 
questions  put  to  the  witnesses  who  appeared  before  it, 
it  may  be  fairly  inferred  that  the  Postal  Commission  from 
the  very  beginning  of  its  investigations  granted  the  con- 
tention that  Professor  Adams  labors  to  establish,  for  it 
began  at  once  the  search  for  information  as  to  what  is 
reasonable  pay  for  carrying  the  mail. 

The  first  two  fundamental  principles  laid  down  by 
Professor  Adams  do  not  shed  much  light  upon  what  is 
reasonable  pay  for  transporting  the  mail.  They  in  reality 
merely  prepare  the  way  for  the  third  and  fourth  princi- 
ples, which  contain  the  meat  of  what  Professor  Adams 
has  to  say  on  what  is  reasonable  compensation. 

Passing  from  his  second  to  his  third  principle,  Pro- 
fessor Adams  says: 

The  third  point,  found  under  the  general  heading  "  Con- 
sideration of  fundamental  principles  relative  to  railway  mail 
compensation,"  is  as  follows:  The  Commission  cannot,  in  view 
of  the  nature  and  history  of  the  postal  service,  ignore  the 
claim  of  public  utility  in  determining  reasonable  compensa- 


1 34  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

tion This  consideration  assists    the  solution  of  the 

problem  in  three  ways.  First,  it  suggests  the  correct  classifi- 
cation of  the  mail  service  among  the  several  transportation 
services. 

The  railways  undoubtedly  have  the  right  to  insist,  from 
their  point  of  view,  that  the  character  of  the  facilities  fur- 
nished for  the  mail  service  should  be  taken  into  account  in 
fixing  compensation,  and  the  Government  is  obliged  to  recog- 
nize this  claim,  because  they  who  invest  in  railway  property 
are  a  part  of  the  state  whose  private  interests  are  included 
in  the  interests  which  the  state  must  guard;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Government  has  the  right  to  insist  that  the 
transportation  of  mail  is  essential,  not  alone  to  the  present 
advantage  of  the  public,  but  to  the  healthful  and  permanent 
development  of  the  state.  It  has  the  right  openly,  publicly, 
and  without  apology,  to  put  in  practice  a  rule  acknowledged 
by  railway  management.  A  railway  manager  is  willing,  for 
example,  to  carry  coal  at  a  very  low  rate,  even  at  the  risk  of 
incurring  loss,  because  he  knows  that  coal  is  potential  indus- 
trial development,  and  what  he  loses  on  the  coal  traffic  becomes 
for  him  a  gain  on  the  transportation  of  high-class  freight,  the 
product  of  the  mills  and  factories  which  the  distribution  of 
the  coal  renders  possible. 

This  line  of  reasoning  is,  even  in  a  higher  degree,  pertinent 
to  the  transmission  of  intelligence,  because  intelligence  is  an 
essential  consideration  for  growth  and  development.  As  the 
distribution  of  coal,  which  is  latent  manufacturing  power,  is 
essential  to  the  upbuilding  of  manufactories,  so  the  diffusion 
of  intelligence  is  a  fundamental  condition  of  all  social  and 
industrial  evolution.  The  meaning  of  all  this  is  evident. 
When  the  Government,  in  considering  the  question  of  com- 
pensation for  carrying  mail,  finds  it  necessary  to  classify  the 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA T  MAIL  PAT  1 35 

mail  service  in  the  general  schedule  of  services  rendered,  it 
will,  if  it  accept  the  principle  of  public  utility  as  the  ruling  con- 
sideration, conclude  that  the  transportation  of  mail  should  be 
classed  among  those  services  which  minister  to  the  develop- 
ment of  the  process  of  production  rather  than  to  the  satisfaction 
of  wants  through  the  transportation  of  the  products.  From 
the  social  point  of  view  there  is  a  difference  between  the  car- 
rying of  mail  and  the  carrying  of  coal,  and  it  is  right  that  a 
schedule  of  rates  conforming  to  the  principle  of  public  utility 
should  recognize  this  difference.  But  of  all  things  transported 
by  rail,  intelligence  is  the  most  essential  to  social  and  economic 
advantage,  and  therefore  is  in  the  highest  degree  amenable  to 
the  consideration  of  public  utility. 

This  principle  of  public  utility  will,  in  the  second  place, 
be  of  assistance  in  bringing  such  action  as  the  Commission 
deems  wise  into  harmony  with  the  generally  accepted  rule 
relative  to  reasonable  railway  transportation. 

Now  the  practical  effect  of  that  point  of  view,  if  conceded, 
would  be,  I  think,  to  recognize  that  from  the  public  point  of 
view  we  have  a  right — the  Government  has  a  right — to  force 
the  mail  compensation  rather  low,  provided  it  does  not  force  it 
so  low  that  the  question  of  compensation  ceases  to  be  a  ques- 
tion of  compensation  and  becomes  a  question  of  taxation,  and 
the  most  that  statistics  can  do  in  this  matter  is  to  set  up  the 
broad  mark  between  those  two  lines. 

The  private  interest  in  railway  charges  is  limited  to  the 
claim  that  the  gross  revenue  of  railways  should  be  adequate  to 
cover  operating  expenses,  fixed  charges,  and  a  fair  return  to 
stockholders.  But  this  amount  having  been  guaranteed,  the 
manner  in  which  this  gross  amount  is  to  be  collected  from  the 
shippers  is  a  matter  of  public  policy,  and  you  can  readily  see 
how  this  view  of  the  case  clears  the  ground  for  such  action 


1 36  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

relative  to  compensation  for  carrying  the  mail  as  may  com- 
mend itself  to  Congress.  The  application  of  the  principle 
of  public  utility  classifies  mail  transportation  with  freight; 
it  classifies  it  among  the  fundamental  or  social  services  of 
railways,  and  it  justifies  an  unusually  low  rate  upon  mail 
transportation,  provided  this  is  essential  to  rendering  the 
important  service  undertaken  by  the  postal  department,  and 
provided  that  the  railways  are  permitted  to  .recoup  themselves 
by  higher  rates  from  other  relatively  less  important  services. 

The  third  scope  of  this  principle  of  public  utility  is,  that 
the  combination  of  the  idea  of  public  utility  with  that  of 
compensation  emphasizes  the  distinction  to  be  made  later 
between  the  transmission  of  intelligence,  which  is  a  primal 
postal  function,  and  the  transmission  of  merchandise  or  bulky 
literary  products,  which  as  a  postal  function  is  of  compara- 
tively recent  development.1 

While  I  cannot  agree  with  all  that  Professor  Adams 
puts  forth  in  his  third  fundamental  principle,  yet  most 
of  his  statements  may  well  be  accepted.  The  cost  of 
service  theory  of  rate-making  is  abandoned.  And  as 
would  be  expected,  he  assumes  that  it  is  impossible  to 
pass  upon  the  fairness  of  any  railway  charge  independ- 
ently of  the  other  rates  with  which  it  forms  a  system. 
In  other  words,  he  contends  that  the  whole  classification 
must  be  examined  before  it  is  possible  to  pass  judgment 
upon  any  particular  rate.  He  premises  that  a  railway 
company  is  entitled  to  a  fair  return  upon  the  value  of  its 

Mbid.,  pp.  9-11.  In  revising  his  testimony  Professor  Adams 
altered  this  citation  somewhat,  but  as  the  changes  are  merely  verbal 
I  have  allowed  his  original  statement  to  stand. 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA T  MAIL  PAT  137 

property.  And  that  the  problem  to  be  solved  is  the 
proportion  in  which  the  different  commodities  transported 
by  the  railway  shall  be  called  upon  to  contribute  to  this 
end.  Or  in  other  language,  how  are  the  services  ren- 
dered by  the  railways  to  be  classified?  He  declares  that 
the  "  social  services  "  should  be  performed  at  unusually 
low  rates.  After  stating  his  theory  of  rate-making,  he 
says:  "The  application  of  the  principle  of  public  utility 
classifies  mail  transportation  with  freight ;  it  classifies  it 
among  the  fundamental  or  social  services  of  railways, 
and  it  justifies  an  unusually  low  rate  upon  mail  transpor- 
tation." From  this  statement  it  must  be  inferred  that  in 
Professor  Adams's  grouping  of  the  services  rendered  by 
the  railways  there  are  some  which  are  not  social.  At 
this  point  I  depart  from  Professor  Adams.  All  the 
services  rendered  by  railways  are  social  services. 

It  appears  to  me  that  Professor  Adams's  theory  is 
also  incomplete.  As  I  have  before  stated,  I  regard 
all  the  services  performed  by  the  railways  as  social 
services.  And  I  would  advance  as  a  fundamental  propo- 
sition that  the  rates  on  these  services  should  be  so 
adjusted  as  to  make  the  railways  promote  the  public 
welfare  in  the  largest  possible  degree,  it  being  under- 
stood that  railway  investors  are  first  of  all  entitled 
to  a  fair  return  upon  their  property.  In  the  presenta- 
tion of  his  fundamental  principles  Professor  Adams 
takes,  or  at  least  appears  to  take,  a  one-sided  view  of 
the  situation.  In  a  certain  sense  he  looks  upon  rail- 
way property  and  employes  as  outside  of  the  social 


138  RAILWAT  MAIL  SERVICE 

community,  but  ministering  to  it.  And  consequently, 
in  rewarding  the  railways  for  services  rendered,  he 
says,  society  is  to  consider  merely  the  importance  of 
the  service  to  itself,  and  then  fix  the  compensation  on 
the  basis  that  services  of  great  social  importance  should 
be  done  at  very  low  rates.  This  view  appears  to  me  to 
be  unsatisfactory.  Railway  property  and  employes  are  a 
part  of  the  community,  and  therefore  the  cost  of  per- 
forming a  service  in  labor  and  capital  must  also  be 
considered ;  that  is,  society  is  interested  in  net  results. 
To  make  my  point  clear,  let  me  illustrate.  Suppose 
that  at  station  A,  for  productive  purposes,  a  ton  of  coal 
is  equal  to  a  cord  of  wood,  but  that  the  cost  in  labor  and 
capital  of  transporting  a  cord  of  wood  from  station  B  to 
station  A  is  twice  that  of  hauling  a  ton  of  coal.1  Obvi- 
ously it  would  be  greatly  to  the  interest  of  society  as  a 
whole  for  the  people  at  station  A  to  use  coal,  and  there- 
fore a  system  of  rates  based  solely  on  the  utility  of 
coal  and  wood  to  the  people  at  station  A  would  not 
result  in  the  most  effective  use  of  the  railroads  to 
society  as  a  whole.  Professor  Adams  may  reply  to 
this  argument  that  my  theory  is  of  no  practical  value 
because  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  the  cost  of  moving 
different  commodities.  In  answer  to  this  contention  I 
would  say,  while  it  is  freely  admitted  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  ascertain  accurately  what  it  costs  to  render 
any  particular  service,  yet  in  most  cases  it  is  possible 

1  It  must  not  be  supposed  that  in  practice  it  is  possible  to  speak 
with  this  definiteness. 


REASONABLE  RAIL WA T  MAIL  PAY  1 39 

to  estimate  approximately  what  is  the  relative  cost  of 
transporting  different  commodities ;  at  least  with  accu- 
racy enough  to  promote  greatly  the  effective  use  of 
railways.  This  contention  Professor  Adams  has,  at  least 
in  a  measure,  admitted. 

The  ground  upon  which  I  differ  from  Professor 
Adams  is  also  in  part  the  ground  upon  which  I  differ 
from  Mr.  Cowles.  In  his  General  Freight  and  Pas- 
senger Post  Mr.  Cowles  contends  that  distance  should 
be  disregarded  in  fixing  freight  and  passenger  rates. 
In  my  opinion  it  should  not  be,  for  if  it  were,  the  rail- 
roads would  not  be  used  most  effectively.  My  asser- 
tion is  based  upon  the  ground  that  while  we  may  not 
be  able  to  tell  exactly  how  much  more  it  costs  to 
haul  a  ton  of  freight  no  miles  than  it  does  to  haul 
it  100  miles,  yet  we  do  know  that  under  exactly  simi- 
lar conditions  it  costs  some  more,  and  that  under  the 
same  conditions  it  costs  much  more  to  haul  a  ton  of 
coal  1,000  miles  than  100  miles,  and  that,  therefore, 
a  system  of  rates  which  makes  it  indifferent  to  a  ship- 
per whether  he  sends  his  products  100  or  1, 000  miles 
does  not  result  in  the  greatest  good  to  society. 

It  is  one  thing  to  enunciate  a  general  principle,  but 
it  is  quite  another  matter  to  apply  this  principle.  Pro- 
fessor Adams  declares  that  railway  rates  should  con- 
form to  the  principle  of  public  utility,  but  makes  no 
attempt  to  classify  according  to  this  principle,  even 
the  most  important  of  the  many  commodities  carried 
by  the  railways.  In  one  place  he  states  that  the  prac- 


1 40  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

tical  effect  of  the  adoption  of  his  principle  would  be 
"to  force  the  mail  compensation  rather  low," l  and  in 
another  place  he  asserts,  with  certain  provisos,  that 
"the  application  of  the  principle  of  public  utility  .... 
justifies  an  unusually  low  rate  on  mail  transportation."1 
And  in  still  another  place  he  declares  that  "  of  all 
things  transported  by  rail,  intelligence  is  the  most 
essential  to  social  and  economic  advantage,  and  there- 
fore is  in  the  highest  degree  amenable  to  the  con- 
sideration of  public  utility."3  This  contention  is  a 
debatable  one.  First  of  all  come  the  physiological 
wants  of  man ;  that  is,  his  necessities  as  an  animal. 
Food,  clothing,  and  shelter  man  must  have.  I  am 
therefore  inclined  to  rank  freedom  of  personal  move- 
ment higher  than  I  am  the  rapid  diffusion  of  intelli- 
gence, for  the  former,  it  seems  to  me,  promotes  the 
acquisition  of  these  things  more  than  the  latter  does. 
For  instance,  the  ability  to  move  from  the  unproductive 
lands  of  New  England  to  the  fertile  lands  of  the  central 
West  has  resulted  in  greater  economic  and  social  advan- 
tage to  the  country  than  any  quantity  of  literature  circu- 
lated in  New  England  on  the  subject  of  improved  farming 
could  have  brought  about.4 

A  full  discussion  of  the  construction   of  a   schedule, 

1  Testimony,  Part  II,  p.  10. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  ii.    The  italics  are  in  both  cases  mine. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  10. 

4  The  representatives  of  the  railways  could,  it  seems  to  me,  very 
properly  contend  that  so  long  as  the  Government  does  not  itself  recog- 
nize the  principle  of  public  utility  in  fixing  its  rates  of  postage,  it 
should  not  adopt  this  principle  in  fixing  their  compensation. 


ui*    r.i* 

-UNIVERSITY 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  PAT  "141 

based  on  the  principle  of  public  utility,  will  not  be 
attempted  here.  But  before  leaving  this  point  I  would 
like  to  raise  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  thor- 
oughgoing application  of  the  principle  of  public  utility  to 
rate-making  would  radically  change  existing  railway  tar- 
iffs. Very  likely  the  framers  of  such  a  schedule  of  rail- 
way rates  would  quickly  meet  the  difficulties  encountered 
by  legislators  in  drawing  up  tariff  bills.  They  would 
probably  early  discover  that  in  order  to  raise  sufficient 
revenue  to  sustain  the  railways  it  would  be  necessary  to 
rely  very  largely  upon  the  commodities  which  are  essen- 
tial to  social  and  economic  well-being,  just  as  legislators 
have  found  that  if  sufficient  revenue  is  to  be  raised  the 
necessities  of  life  must  be  the  main  reliance  of  govern- 
ments. Just  how  much  the  public  would  profit  by  the 
systematic  application  of  Professor  Adams's  third  funda- 
mental principle  of  rate-making  can  be  estimated  only 
after  the  most  painstaking  and  exhaustive  study  of  exist- 
ing rate  schedules,  and  such  an  examination  has  not  yet 
been  made. 

Perhaps  the  application  of  the  principle  of  public 
utility  would  not  greatly  alter  existing  railway  tariffs,  for 
another  reason.  The  better  class  of  railway  managers 
now  fully  realize  that  their  welfare  is  dependent  upon 
that  of  the  people  whom  they  serve,  and  it  may  be 
that  an  examination  of  railway  schedules  would  show  that 
railway  men  in  adjusting  their  rates  have  been  guided,  in 
some  measure  at  least,  by  this  principle.  That  such  is  the 
case  is  admitted  by  Professor  Adams.  Brick,  stone,  lum- 


142  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

her,  coal,  coke,  ores  of  the  base  metals,  and  food  products 
consumed  by  the  masses  are  carried  at  low  rates.  Lux- 
uries, on  the  other  hand,  pay  high  rates.  In  other  words, 
the  articles  consumed  productively  are  favored  by  rail- 
way managers,  while  those  consumed  unproductively  are 
discriminated  against.  This  is  in  consonance  with  Pro- 
fessor Adams's  principle  of  public  utility. 

Although  the  principle  of  public  utility  is  applied  to 
the  movement  of  freight,  it  is  applied  much  more  thor- 
oughly to  the  transportation  of  passengers.  As  rates  are 
now  adjusted  very  few  railroads  in  the  United  States 
obtain  any  net  returns  from  their  passenger  train  service, 
and  the  great  bulk  of  the  railways  would  probably  be 
better  off  if  they  altogether  removed  their  passenger 
trains,  provided  their  freight  train  earnings  were  not 
affected.  During  the  year  1898  the  average  revenue  per 
train  mile  earned  by  the  passenger  trains  of  the  United 
States  was  $0.974,  while  the  average  revenue  per  train  mile 
earned  by  the  freight  trains  was  $1.731,  and  the  average  cost 
of  running  all  trains  per  mile  was  fo.956.1  While  the  cost 
of  running  freight  and  passenger  trains,  respectively,  can- 
not be  ascertained  with  exactness,  it  is  generally  estimated 
that  it  costs  as  much  per  mile  to  run  passenger  as  freight 
trains.  If  this  is  true,  passenger  trains  contribute  almost 
nothing  to  the  fund  for  the  payment  of  taxes,  of  interest 
on  bonds  and  dividends  to  stockholders.2  As  the  pas- 
senger train  mileage  of  all  our  railways  does  not  fall  far 

Statistics  of  the  railways  of  the  United  States,  1898,  p.  93. 
2  The  statement  just  made  of  the  average  cost  of  running  trains 
does  not  include  these  items.     It  is  thus  misleading. 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA T  MAIL  PAT  143 

short  of  that  of  freight  trains,1  it  is  seen  that  the  principle  of 
public  utility  has  already  been  widely  applied  in  fixing 
railway  charges.  This  follows  because  those  services 
which  especially  promote  social  well-being,  namely,  the 
transportation  of  passengers  and  mail,  are  performed  by 
the  railways  at  less  than  cost.  I  say  less  than  cost, 
because  the  passenger  trains  contribute  almost  nothing 
to  the  payment  of  taxes,  interest  and  dividends. 

It  being  granted  that  the  movement  of  passengers  and 
mail  is  among  the  most  important  of  the  services  ren- 
dered society  by  the  railways,  and  as  it  must  be  conceded 
that  they  are  carried  at  less  than  cost,  Professor  Adams 
must  admit  that  the  principle  of  public  utility  is  now 
applied  to  railway  charges.  And  consequently  all  that 
remains  for  discussion  is  the  question  whether  or  not  the 
principle  is  applied  with  sufficient  thoroughness.  Accord- 
ing to  the  limitatious  he  has  himself  placed  upon  the 
application  of  his  principle  the  limit  has  been  passed,  for 
he  says  the  practical  effect  of  the  adoption  of  the  princi- 
ple of  public  utility  would  be  that — 

We  have  a  right  —  the  Government  has  a  right  —  to  foerc 
the  mail  compensation  rather  low,  provided  it  does  not  force 
it  so  low  that  the  question  of  compensation  ceases  to  be  a 
question  of  compensation  and  becomes  a  question  of  taxation, 
and  the  most  that  statistics  can  do  in  this  matter  is  to  set  up 
the  broad  mark  between  these  two  lines.2 

1  During  the  year  1898  the  aggregate  passenger  train  mileage  was 
341,526,769,  and  the  aggregate  freight  train  mileage  503,766,258.    Ibid., 
p.  69. 

2  Testimony,  Part  II,  p.  10. 


1 44  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

If  it  be  granted  that  passenger  train  earnings  should 
not  be  forced  still  lower  than  they  are  now,  all  that 
remains  for  discussion  is  the  proportion  in  which  the 
traffic  moved  on  passenger  trains  should  be  made  to  con- 
tribute to  the  support  of  the  passenger  train  service. 

If  the  diffusion  of  intelligence  and  the  movement  of 
passengers  are  of  about  equal  social  importance,  then, 
according  to  the  principle  of  public  utility,  they  should 
contribute  in  a  like  ratio  to  the  maintenance  of  the  pas- 
senger train  service.  If  mail  and  passenger  earnings  do 
conform  to  this  standard,  then  the  present  mail  rates, 
whose  fairness  it  is  our  object  to  test,  already  satisfy  the 
requirements  of  reasonableness  set  up  by  the  principle  of 
public  utility.  How  can  it  be  ascertained  whether  this 
conformity  exists  ?  A  comparison  on  the  basis  of  weight 
is  unsatisfactory,  because  (i)  the  weight  of  the  passengers 
would  have  to  be  estimated,  and  because  (2)  the  dead 
weight  hauled,  that  is,  the  weight  of  the  cars,  cannot  be 
assumed  to  be  in  proportion  to  the  weight  of  the  mail 
and  passengers.  The  space  basis  cannot  be  accepted  for 
the  second  of  the  reasons  just  stated.  While  not  entirely 
satisfactory,  probably  a  comparison  based  on  the  gross 
tonnage  comes  nearest  satisfying  all  requirements  of  a 
fair  test.  By  gross  tonnage  I  mean  the  weight  of  the 
car  plus  its  contents,  whatever  they  may  be.  Several  of 
the  witnesses  who  appeared  before  the  Commission  sub- 
mitted arguments  based  on  this  comparison.  Their 
results  may  be  found  in  brief  compass  in  the  subjoined 
table: 


REASONABLE  RAILWAT  MAIL  PAT 


Year  ending. 

System. 

Mail  Pay  per 
Mile  per 
Gross  Ton. 

Passengers. 
Pay  per  Mile 
per  Gross  Ton. 

Tune  30,  1897 
June  30  1898 

Louisville  and  Nashville  1-__ 
Southern  Railway8  

Cents. 
0.610 

O  7J.C 

Cents. 
0.685 
o  581 

June  ~?o  i8o7 

All  the  railways  of  the  United 
States* 

O  6^2 

O  7OO 

If  the  figures  presented  in  this  table  are  reliable,  it 
would  have  to  be  conceded  that,  on  the  basis  we  have 
accepted,  the  railways  are  not  overpaid  for  carrying  the 
mail.  Mr.  Stuart  R.  Knott,  who  presented  the  argument 
of  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  did 
not  state  how  he  obtained  the  gross  tonnage  hauled  one 
mile.  At  another  point  in  his  argument  he  states  that 
"  the  sixty-foot  railway  post-office  cars,  constructed  in 
accordance  with  Government  requirements,  weigh  89,000 
pounds."4  This  may  be  true,  but  if  he  assumes  that  the 
average  weight  of  the  entire  equipment  of  postal  cars  of 
the  company  he  represented  was  89,000  pounds,  I  should 
feel  that  he  somewhat  overstates  the  number  of  gross 
tons  hauled  one  mile  in  the  transportation  of  mail,  for 
the  old  railway  post-office  cars  do  not  weigh  so  much  as 
the  new  ones.  In  fairness  to  the  other  railways  of  the 
United  States,  it  must  be  stated  that  conditions  on  the 
Southern  Railway  are  not  typical.  It  is  one  of  the  very 
few  systems  of  the  country  that  receive  the  so-called 

Senate  Report  No.  991,  p.  65,  LV  Congress,  second  session. 

2 Testimony,  Part  I,  p.  698.    3  Ibid.,  Part  II,  pp.  88,  89. 

4  Senate  Report  No.  991,  p.  73,  LV  Congress,  second  session. 


1 46  RAIL  WA  r  MAIL  SER  VICE 

special  facility  pay,  and  the  mail  for  a  very  large  portion 
of  the  South  is  concentrated  on  this  line.  Several  Post- 
masters-General in  succession  have  refused  to  recom- 
mend this  subsidy  in  their  annual  estimates,  but  one 
Congress  after  another  has  continued  it  by  special  appro- 
priation. The  average  earnings  per  gross  ton  per  mile 
for  all  the  railways  of  the  United  States  were  taken  from 
the  second  statement  submitted  to  the  Postal  Commission 
by  Mr.  Julius  Kruttschnitt,  general  manager  of  the 
Southern  Pacific  Company.  His  results  cannot  be  ac- 
cepted as  conclusive,  for  they  are  in  a  measure  based  on 
estimates.  It  would  have  been  much  more  satisfactory 
to  have  had  from  Mr.  Kruttschnitt  carefully  compiled 
data  for  the  Southern  Pacific  Company. 

In  view  of  the  difficulties  inherent  in  obtaining  the 
gross  ton  mileage  moved  respectively  in  the  mail  and 
passenger  business,  I  have  been  inclined  to  turn  to  car- 
mile  and  train-mile  earnings  for  light  on  the  reasonable- 
ness of  the  mail  compensation.  While  these  bases  do 
not  yield  results  that  are  wholly  satisfactory,  never- 
theless, as  railway  records  are  now  kept,  they  give  better 
results  than  the  method  just  presented.1 

In  the  following  table  the  average  earnings  from  mail 
and  passengers  per  car  per  mile  are  submitted  : 

1  This  basis  was  later  adopted  by  Professor  Adams  in  his  final 
statement  to  the  Postal  Commission,  submitted  after  this  chapter  was 
originally  printed.  In  this  statement  the  test  on  which  his  finding 
turned  wholly  ignored  the  theory  of  public  utility,  and  rested  solely 
on  train-mile  cost  and  train-mile  earnings. 


REASONABLE  RAILWAY  MAIL  PAT 


'47 


Year  ending. 

System. 

Average  Earn- 
ings per  Mile 
of  bo-foot 
Mail  Cars. 

Average  Earn- 
ings per  Mile 
of  all  Pas- 
senger Cars. 

June  30,  1897 
June  30,  1897 

Chicago  and  North-Westera  1 
Louisville  and  Nashville2 

Cents. 
21.66 
18.79 

Cents. 
21.83 
20.o6 

The  data  for  the  North-Western,  I  have  been  assured, 
were  very  carefully  collected.  The  total  mileage  of  the 
mail  cars  could  be  ascertained  with  absolute  accuracy, 
also  the  mileage  of  the  apartment  cars.  As  the  length 
of  the  mail  cars  and  the  apartments  devoted  to  mail  were 
known,  it  was  a  mere  matter  of  arithmetic  to  find  out 
the  equivalent  mileage  in  terms  of  6o-foot  cars.  The 
space  allotted  to  pouches  generally  had  to  be  estimated, 
but  not  in  all  cases,  for  on  some  of  the  through  trains  a 
fixed  space  is  set  apart  for  mail.  No  great  error  could 
be  introduced  because  of  the  space  assigned  to  pouches, 
for  this  space,  reduced  to  car  miles,  amounted  to  but  5 
per  cent  of  the  total.  It  does  not  seem  possible  because 
the  space  allotted  to  pouches  was  estimated,  an  error 
was  introduced  into  the  table  of  2  per  cent,  at  the  out- 
side. The  average  car-mile  earnings  of  the  passenger 
cars  has  been  recorded  for  some  years,  so  there  is  prob- 
ably no  error  at  all  in  the  statement  of  the  earnings  of 
the  passenger  equipment. 

Unusual  value   attaches    to   this   comparison   of  the 

Computed  from  information  given  on  pages  200  and  205  of 
Testimony,  Part  I,  and  on  pages  34  and  57  of  the  Annual  Report  of 
the  North-Westera  Railway  for  1897. 

2  Senate  Report  No.  991,  p.  64,  LV  Congress,  second  session. 


148 


RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 


mail  and  passenger  earnings  of  the  North-Western, 
because  it  is  a  large  system,  and  has  both  light  and 
heavy  mail  routes.  That  its  mail  earnings  are  typical  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  while  its  average  earnings  per  ton 
per  mile  for  carrying  the  mail  during  1897  were  12.68 
cents,  the  average  earnings  for  the  whole  country  were 
12.56  cents.1  The  passenger  earnings  of  this  company  are 
also  fairly  representative.  During  1897  tne  average  per 
mile  earnings  of  passenger  trains  on  the  North-Western 
were  85.9  cents,  and  the  average  per  mile  earnings  for  the 
whole  country  were  93.9  cents.2  It  is  to  be  noted  that 
the  average  length  of  the  passenger  cars  is  not  stated, 
but  I  believe  it  may  be  assumed  that  it  is  less,  rather 
than  more,  than  60  feet.  While  the  sleepers  exceed  60 
feet  in  length,  the  standard  coaches  of  this  company  are 
but  54  feet  in  length,  and  the  aggregate  mileage  of  the 
latter  is  several  times  that  of  the  former.  In  the  matter 
of  dead  weight  the  mail  cars  also  stand  about  midway 
between  the  coaches  and  sleepers,  and  therefore  the  dead 
weight  of  the  equipment  hauled  in  transporting  mail  and 
passengers  can  probably  also  be  disregarded  without  fear 
of  greatly  impairing  the  accuracy  of  the  results. 

As  Mr.  Knott  did  not  state  fully  how  the  average 
car-mile  earnings  of  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  were 
obtained,  judgment  as  to  their  reliability  cannot  be 
passed.  But  it  is  due  to  Mr.  Knott  to  state  that  no  criti- 

1  For  the  average  ton-mile  earnings  of  the  North-Western,  see 
Testimony,  Part  I,  p.  205,  and  for  the  average  earnings  of  all  the 
railways,  see  ibid.,  Part  II,  p.  45. 

3  Statistics  of  the  Railways  of  the  United  States,  1897,  pp.  82  and 
358. 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WAT  MAIL  PAT  149 

cism  can  be  made  of  his  methods  so  far  as  they  are  set 
forth  in  his  argument.  The  possibility  of  introducing  a 
small  error  into  the  car-mile  earnings  of  mail  he  has 
avoided  by  allowing  no  space  whatever  for  the  carriage 
of  mail  in  baggage  cars  in  closed  pouches.  This  space 
would  of  necessity  have  to  be  largely  estimated.  It  is 
to  be  noted  that  he  does  not  give  the  average  length  of 
the  mail  cars.  It  may  be  that  the  average  length  of  the 
mail  cars  on  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  is  not  equal  to 
the  average  length  of  the  baggage  cars,  coaches,  diners, 
and  sleepers.  On  this  point,  however,  I  have  no  infor- 
mation. 

Comparisons  have  now  been  made  of  mail  and  pas- 
senger earnings  on  the  basis  of  the  gross  tonnage  hauled 
in  moving  mail  and  passengers  respectively,  and  also  on 
the  basis  of  car- mile  earnings.  There  is  still  one  other 
comparison  which  I  wish  to  introduce.  Although  it  is 
of  limited  scope,  it  is  nevertheless  of  great  importance. 
It  clearly  shows  there  is  still  competition  between  rail- 
ways, and  although  railways  fiercely  compete  for  the 
mail  traffic,  it  does  not  follow,  as  has  often  been  argued, 
that  this  business  is  profitable.  As  is  well  known,  the 
North-Western  and  the  Burlington  run  fast  mail  trains 
between  Chicago  and  Council  Bluffs.  Both  the  North- 
Western  and  the  Burlington  have  two  fast  mail  trains 
west-bound  and  the  latter  has  one  east-bound.  As  the 
Chicago-Council  Bluffs  route  is  the  heaviest  route  these 
companies  have  it  would  naturally  be  expected  that  these 
trains  would  yield  large  returns.  The  average  train-mile 


'5° 


RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 


earnings  of  the  mail  trains  of  the  Burlington,  whose 
earnings  are  the  larger,  and  the  average  train-mile  earn- 
ings from  all  sources  of  all  the  passenger  trains  of  this 
system  are  set  forth  in  the  following  table : l 


MAIL  TRAINS. 

PASSENGER 

TRAINS. 

Average 

Earnings 

Average 
Earnings 

Earnings 
from  all 

SYSTEM. 

Designation  of 
Train. 

Train 

per  Mile 
of  the 

Sources  per 
Train  Mile 

Mile. 

Three 

of  all 

Trains. 

Passenger 

Trains. 

Chicago,  Burlington 
and  Quincy  Rail- 
road Company 

No.  15,  west-bound 
No.  7,     " 
No.  8,  east-bound 

"fi 

.61 

$0.92 

$1.09 

After  the  presentation  of  this  table  it  scarcely  need  be 
said  that  the  fast  mail  trains  of  these  two  systems  between 
Chicago  and  Council  Bluffs  cannot  be  a  source  of  profit. 
The  average  speed  of  the  fastest  of  these  trains  is  higher 
than  that  of  any  other  fast  mail  train  in  the  country. 
The  fast-mail  trains  between  New  York  and  Chicago  and 
Council  Bluffs  and  San  Francisco  are  slow  trains  com- 
pared with  the  trains  of  the  North-Western  and  the  Bur- 
lington. 

The  fourth  and  last  of  Professor  Adams's  fundamental 
principles  in  accordance  with  which  railroad  rates  should 
be  adjusted  reads  as  follows  : 

1  The  data  from  which  the  train-mile  earnings  of  the  mail  trains 
were  computed  were  obtained  from  Mr.  E.  L.  West,  superintendent 
of  railway  mail  service  at  Chicago.  The  earnings  of  passenger 
trains  on  the  Burlington  were  obtained  from  the  auditor  of  the  Bur- 
lington, Mr.  C.  I.  Sturgis.  In  train  No.  7,  except  on  Tuesdays,  there 
is  an  express  car  from  Chicago  to  Union  Pacific  Transfer.  Some  of 
the  mail  cars  hauled  west  loaded  are  returned  empty. 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA T  MAIL  PAT  151 

The  possibility  of  introducing  economies  into  the  business 
of  transportation  depends  upon  the  increase  in  the  volume  of 
traffic,  from  which,  in  the  absence  of  countervailing  considera- 
tions, it  follows  that  a  form  of  traffic  which  increases  most  rap- 
idly through  a  series  of  years  should  show  a  relatively  more 
rapid  decrease  in  charges  as  compared  with  other  traffic.1 

It  will  be  remembered  that  before  Professor  Adams 
presented  his  fundamental  principles  of  rate-making  he 
took  the  ground  that  the  reasonableness  of  a  rate  could 
not  be  judged  from  the  cost  of  service  because  it  is  impos- 
sible to  ascertain  the  cost  service.  He  also  assumed,  in 
substance  at  least,  that  even  if  it  were  .possible  to  com- 
pute the  cost  of  service  it  would  not  be  advantageous  to 
the  public  to  adjust  rates  on  that  basis.  In  other  words, 
that  the  interests  of  the  public  would  be  best  advanced  by 
encouraging  with  low  rates  the  movement  of  those  com- 
modities which  in  the  largest  measure  promote  social 
welfare,  and  by  discouraging  by  high  rates  the  movement 
of  such  articles  as  are  either  of  little  value  or  are  posi- 
tively inimical  to  the  interests  of  society.  As  I  have 
before  stated,  Professor  Adams  has  not  presented  his 
views  perhaps  as  explicitly  as  they  have  just  been  set 
forth,  but  he  is  logically  bound  by  his  utterances  to  the 
propositions  I  have  stated. 

Professor  Adams's  fourth  fundamental  principle  is  not 
in  harmony  with  his  other  fundamental  principles.  It 
was  asserted  that  public  utility  should  be  the  fundamental 
consideration  in  rate-making.  This  being  true,  I  cannot 

1  Testimony,  Part  II,  pp.  n  and  12. 


1 5  2  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

understand  why,  as  a  broad  proposition,  rates  on  any  par- 
ticular commodity  should  be  lowered  just  because  the 
movement  of  that  commodity  has  largely  increased, 
thereby  making  possible  the  introduction  of  economies 
into  the  business  of  transportation.  On  the  contrary, 
such  an  increased  movement  might  be  assigned  as  a  suffi- 
cient reason  for  the  rate  being  fixed  higher.  Whether  the 
rate  should  go  up  or  down  would  depend  upon  whether, 
after  all  things  had  been  considered,  the  enlarged  move- 
ment of  the  article  under  consideration  would  be  the  best 
for  society. 

The  preceding  pages  have  been  largely  devoted  to  the 
statement  and  examination  of  Professor  Adams's  theory  of 
rate-making.  The  succeeding  pages  will  be  given  over 
to  an  examination  of  his  data.  In  explaining  the  funda- 
mental principles  underlying  the  law  of  1873  he  says: 

There  is  no  business  connection  between  post-office 
receipts  for  services  rendered  the  public  and  post-office  pay- 
ments to  railways  for  mail  transportation.  The  former  disre- 
gards distance;  the  latter  is  in  proportion  to  distance.  For  a 
package  or  a  letter  sent  a  short  distance  the  Government 
receives  a  profit ;  for  a  package  or  letter  sent  a  long  dis- 
tance it  pays  the  railway  more  than  it  receives.  The  length 
of  haul  where  profit  turns  into  a  loss  for  the  respective  classes 
of  mail  matter  is  as  follows  :l 

MILES. 

For  first-class  mail 1,782 

For  second-class  mail 56 

For  third-class  mail 446 

For  fourth-class  mail 891 

1  Ibid.,  p.  12. 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA T  MAIL  PAT  153 

According  to  this  table,  what  the  Government  receives 
in  postage  is  quickly  swallowed  up  by  the  railways.  The 
postage  on  second-class  matter,  which  pays  the  lowest 
rate  of  postage,  scarcely  suffices  to  pay  the  railways 
for  hauling  it  out  of  the  county  in  which  it  is  pub- 
lished, and  the  whole  of  the  postage  on  first-class 
matter  is  barely  enough  to  pay  its  railway  transporta- 
tion two-thirds  of  the  distance  across  the  continent. 
The  situation  is  not  nearly  so  bad,  however,  as  it  appears 
at  first  blush,  for  Professor  Adams  later  explains  that: 

The  above  classification  rests  on  ....  the  assumption  that  \ 
the  Post-Office  Department  pays  to  railways  35  per  cent  of 
what  it  receives.     It  does  not  take  account  of  the  fact  that 
some  letters  and  packages  weigh  less  than  the  weight  paid  for 
by  the  shipper,  or  that_the  35  per  cent  referred  to  does  not  / 
make  allowance   for  the  deficit   in  the  post-office   accounts 
made  up  from  taxation.1 

To  say  the  least,  Professor  Adams's  exposition  is 
not  skillful.  It  is  not  only  confusing,  but  also  highly 
unsatisfactory,  to  be  informed,  for  example,  that  when 
first-class  mail  is  hauled  1,782  miles,  the  entire  amount 
received  for  postage  must  be  turned  over  to  the  rail- 
ways in  payment  for  transportation,  and  later  on  to  be 
told  that  only  35  per  cent,  of  the  postage  is  paid  to 
the  railways  for  hauling  first-class  mail  1,782  miles, 
and  still  later  to  be  informed  that  even  this  statement 
is  based  on  the  assumption  that  letters  and  packages 
never  weigh  less  than  the  maximum  weight  paid  for 

'Ibid. 


1 54  RAIL  WA  T  MA IL  SER  VICE 

by  the  sender.  Numerous  tests  have  shown  that  the 
average  amount  of  postage  paid  per  pound  on  letters 
is  85.6  cents,1  or  nearly  three  times  the  amount  that 
would  be  paid  did  the  weight  of  each  letter  conform 
to  the  postage  placed  upon  it.  It  scarcely  need  be 
called  to  any  one's  attention  that  the  letters  whose 
weight  is  all  the  stamps  put  upon  the  envelope  will 
carry  are  very  rare  indeed,  and  that  therefore  Pro- 
fessor Adams's  assumption  that  on  the  average  each 
pound  of  letters  pays  32  cents  in  postage  is  too  wide 
of  the  truth  to  be  accepted  even  as  a  working  basis. 
Instead  of  the  payment  for  railway  transportation 
absorbing  the  whole  of  the  revenue  derived  from  post- 
age on  letters  when  the  haul  reaches  1,782  miles,  as 
stated  by  Professor  Adams,  the  payments  to  the  rail- 
'Cv/  1  ways  would  not  on  the  average  equal  the  postage  paid 
A-^J-  /  until  the  haul  reached  13,696  miles.  This  being  true, 
Professor  Adams's  modifiers  should  have  been  incor- 
porated in  his  table,  for  no  one  anticipates  that  the 
neglected  factors  will  materially  change  results.  Figures 
that  must  be  multiplied  by  7.6  to  make  them  conform  to 
the  facts  can  hardly  be  a  satisfactory  guide  for  action.2 

The  modifications  thus  far  considered  should,  for 
the  sake  of  clearness  and  accuracy,  have  been  intro- 
duced earlier.  The  next  modifying  clause  should  not 
have  been  introduced  at  all,  for  it  is  not  relevant. 

1  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1899,  p.  7. 

2  For  a  discussion  of  this  subject  that  follows  slightly  different 
lines,  see  The  Postal  Deficit,  by  Professor  H.  T.  Newcomb,  pages 
105  and  106. 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA Y  MAIL  PAT  155 

Professor  Adams  explains  that  in  computing  the  table 
just  introduced  he  made  "no  allowance  for  the  deficit 
in  post-office  accounts  made  up  from  taxation."  For 
one  I  cannot  understand  why,  in  ascertaining  the  dis- 
tance at  which  the  cost  of  railway  transportation  at 
a  specified  rate  eats  up  the  postage  on  a  package, 
consideration  should  be  given  to  the  fact  that  there 
is  a  deficit  in  the  Post-Office  Department.  Professor 
Adams  in  this  case  evidently  did  not  have  very  clearly 
in  mind  just  what  he  wished  to  present. 

The  next  assertion,  or  rather  conjecture,  of  Pro- 
fessor Adams  is  also  very  much  out  of  line  with  the 
facts.  It  shows  plainly  that  he  is  either  wholly 
unacquainted  with  the  real  nature  of  the  mail  traffic, 
or  that  he  spoke  without  sufficient  reflection,  for  just 
the  opposite  of  that  for  which  he  contends  is  true. 
He  says  that  the  mail  traffic  is  a  uniform  one,  and 
that  consequently  the  mail  equipment  of  the  railways 
is  fully  and  economically  employed ;  or,  in  other  words, 
that  the  hauling  of  but  partially  loaded  and  empty  cars 
is  reduced  to  a  minimum.  His  contention,  stated  in  his 
own  language,  is  as  follows : 

Among  the  considerations  favorable  to  the  argument  that 
railway  mail  compensation  might  with  propriety  be  reduced 
are  the  following:  This  traffic  is  a  sure  traffic  to  the  railways; 
it  is  a  steady  traffic,  and  while  it  may  be  true  that  a  heavier 
weight  of  mail  passes  west  than  passes  east — which  cannot  be 
said,  of  course,  of  freight  —  it  does  not  vary  from  month  to 
month  as  does  the  passenger  traffic.  It  is  distributed  with  a 
fair  degree  of  equality.  I  assume,  though  I  have  not  gathered 


1 56  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

figures  to  test  the  assumption,  that  year  in  and  year  out  the 
mail  equipment  of  the  railways  is  used  more  nearly  to  its  full 
capacity  than  the  freight  or  the  passenger  equipment.  Here 
again  we  need  more  light.1 

While  on  several  points  positive  information  is  want- 
ing, it  can,  nevertheless,  be  asserted  on  the  basis  of  the 
facts  we  do  possess  that  Professor  Adams's  conjecture  is 
diametrically  opposed  to  the  facts.  The  mail  traffic  is 
not  evenly  distributed  through  the  year  or  the  month,  or 
even  through  the  week.  The  statement  that  the  mail 
traffic  "  does  not  vary  from  month  to  month  as  does  the 
passenger  traffic"  is  merely  an  assumption.  The  busi- 
ness of  the  post-office  fluctuates  during  the  year  as  does 
all  other  forms  of  business.  In  fact,  the  operations  of 
the  post-office  are  a  very  good  barometer  of  conditions 
in  the  business  world.  Great  business  activity  means 
great  activity  in  the  post-office,  for  it  is  the  instrumental- 
ity through  which  the  modern  business  world  largely 
operates.  During  the  months  of  the  year  when  business 
is  at  a  low  ebb  the  transactions  of  the  post-office  are 
limited  and  the  passenger  traffic  is  light,  for  the  bulk  of 
those  who  travel  do  not  travel  for  pleasure,  but  on  busi- 
ness, and  when  business  is  active  the  passenger  trains  are 
most  largely  patronized. 

The  mail  traffic  is  not  uniform  through  the  month,  for 
the  movement  of  magazines  is  not  equally  distributed. 
These  periodicals  are  thrown  into  the  mail  about  the 
twentieth  of  the  month,  and  practically  disappear  early 

testimony,  Part  II,  p.  25. 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WAT  MAIL  PAT 


'57 


in  the  new  month,  to  reappear  again  about  the  same  time 
as  during  the  preceding  month. 

The  movement  of  mail  is  not  even  uniform  during 
the  limited  period  of  a  week.  Sundays  and  Mondays 
the  mails  are  much  lighter  than  on  other  days.  The 
accompanying  table  shows  the  wide  fluctuations  in  the 
movement  of  mail.  It  covers  the  shipment  of  mail  out 
of  Chicago  over  the  railways  during  the  recent  weighing 
period  of  thirty-five  days  ordered  by  the  Postmaster- 
General  : 

WEIGHT  OF  MAIL  ORIGINATING  IN  CHICAGO  AND  DIS- 
PATCHED BY  RAILROADS   FROM  OCTOBER  3 
TO  NOVEMBER  6,  1899. 


1899- 


Pounds. 


1899. 


Pounds. 


October   3,  Tuesday 

"        4,  Wednesday — 

5,  Thursday 

6,  Friday 

7,  Saturday 

8,  Sunday 

"        9,  Monday 

"      10,  Tuesday 

"       n,  Wednesday- - 

"      12,  Thursday 

"      13,  Friday 

"      14,  Saturday 

"      15,  Sunday 

"      16,  Monday 

"      17,  Tuesday 

"      18,  Wednesday- - 

"       19,  Thursday 

"      20,  Friday 


312,718 
316,845 
288,373 
293,902 
276,844 
143,577 
iii,273] 
250,196 
286,198 
289,782 
271,459 
238,458 


197,274 
270,080 
291,283 

269^280 


October  21,  Saturday  -__ 

22,  Sunday 

"  23,  Monday 

"  24,  Tuesday  --. 
"  25,  Wednesday 
26,  Thursday  _ . 

11  27,  Friday 

14  28,  Saturday-  -_ 

"  29,  Sunday 

"  30,  Monday 

"  31,  Tuesday  _-- 

November  i,  Wednesday 

2,  Thursday  -- 

3,  Friday 

"           4,  Saturday _-- 
11  5,  Sunday 

6,  Monday 


242,545 
147,325 
195,516 

239,944 
279,637 

273.987 
262,794 
257,172 
146,280 
241,868 
3i3>586 
3H.274 
315,670 
299,756 

279430 
152,380 
225,758 


There  are  still  other  peculiarities  about  the  movement 
of  mail  that   make   it  impossible   to   handle  this  traffic 
1  Holiday. 


1 58  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

economically.  As  you  go  farther  and  farther  west  the 
population  becomes  sparser  and  sparser.  Consequently, 
as  the  mail  trains  proceed  on  their  westward  journey, 
particularly  as  they  leave  the  large  cities,  the  weight  of 
the  mail  carried  gradually  diminishes,  for  at  every  sta- 
tion more  mail  is  thrown  off  than  is  taken  on.  In  this 
way  the  weight  of  the  mail  is  gradually  reduced,  so  that 
by  the  time  the  trains  from  Chicago  reach  the  Missouri 
River  they  are  carrying  but  little  mail.  This  gradual 
tapering  of  mails  like  a  funnel  as  the  trains  move  west- 
ward precludes  economical  loading.  In  the  case  of  freight 
and  passengers,  as  the  traffic  diminishes  cars  can  be 
removed  from  the  trains  and  trains  can  be  combined. 
This  cannot  be  done  in  the  case  of  mail  trains,  for  these 
trains  must  maintain  such  a  high  rate  of  speed  that  time 
cannot  be  taken  for  the  removal  of  cars.  Where  there 
is  but  a  single  mail  car  on  a  train,  this  must  go  through 
to  the  end  of  the  route  regardless  of  the  diminished 
amount  of  mail  there  may  be  in  it,  for  time  cannot  be 
taken  to  transfer  this  mail  to  an  apartment  car,  and  for 
the  removal  of  the  mail  car  from  the  train.  From  what 
has  been  said  it  should  be  evident  that  mail  cannot  be 
loaded  so  economically  as  freight.  A  mail  car  may  leave 
Chicago  with  all  the  mail  that  can  be  separated  in  it,  but 
before  it  reaches  Omaha  it  may  be  nearly  empty.  Freight 
cars,  on  the  other  hand,  except  in  rare  instances,  go 
through  to  their  destination  with  their  full  load.  The 
mail  traffic  is  too  limited  in  volume  to  permit  of  econom- 
ical loading. 


REASONABLE  RAILWAT  MAIL  PAT 


159 


Mail  equipment  cannot  be  used  to  anywhere  near  its 
full  capacity  for  still  another  reason.  The  west-bound 
movement  of  mail  greatly  exceeds  the  east-bound.  This 
follows  because  papers  and  periodicals,  broadly  speaking, 
circulate  west  of  the  point  at  which  they  are  published. 
It  scarcely  need  be  stated  that  the  bulk  of  the  mail  is 
made  up  of  printed  matter.  The  preponderance  of  the 
west-bound  movement  over  the  east-bound  is  reflected 
by  the  following  statement  received  from  the  second 
assistant  postmaster-general,  Mr.  W.  S.  Shallenberger, 
of  the  traffic  on  the  heaviest  routes  running  from  Chicago 
to  the  northwest,  west,  and  southwest. 


Railway. 

Route. 

Percentage  of  the 
Total  Carried 
Northwest,  West, 
or  Southwest. 

Pounds  Carried 
Northwest/West, 
or  Southwest. 

Percentage  of  the  1 
Total  Carried 
Northeast,  East, 
or  Southeast. 

Pounds  Carried 
Northeast,  East, 
or  Southeast. 

North-  Western 
St  Paul 

Chicago-Milwaukee.  - 
Chicago-Milwaukee.  . 
Chicago-Winona 
Chicago-  Kittridge  ... 
Chicago-Union  Pacific 
Transfer  

63 
70 
72 
60 

70 
73 
79 

70 

21,933 
88,370 
10,899 
8,843 

34,6i4 
23,635 
109,078 
12,761 

37 
3g 
28 
40 

30 
27 

21 
30 

12,881 
37,873 
4,239 
5,896 

H,834 
8,742 
28,996 
5.469 

North-Western 
St  Paul 

North-Western 

Rock  Island  .. 
Burlington  
Santa  F£ 

Chicago-Davenport  -. 
Chicago-Burlington  _  . 
Chicago-  Kansas  City- 

Totals  

3IO.I33 

118,930 

After  considering  all  the  peculiarities  of  the  move- 
ment of  mail,  I  doubt  very  much  if  on  the  average  the 
railway  post-office  cars  are  loaded  with  one-third  of  the 
amount  of  mail  that  can  be  conveniently  worked  in  them. 


1 60  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SBR  VICE 

This,  of  course,  is  not  an  exact  computation.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  not  merely  a  guess.  That  it  is  not 
simply  a  guess  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  west-bound 
movement  on  the  routes  just  considered  is  nearly  three 
times  the  east-bound,  from  which  it  follows  that  the  cars 
on  their  return  trip  were,  at  best,  but  little  more  than 
one-third  loaded.  In  conclusion,  let  me  state,  although 
it  hardly  seems  necessary  to  do  so,  that  what  has  been 
said  in  regard  to  the  economical,  or  rather  non-economi- 
cal, loading  of  cars  is  not  affected  by  the  fact  that  the 
Government  pays  the  railways  on  the  basis  of  the  aver- 
age weight  carried  over  the  whole  route  per  day.  The 
average  is  but  the  smoked  glass  that  hides  the  true  situ- 
ation, or  the  great  diversity  that  prevails.  This  is  so 
simple  a  proposition  that  I  am  quite  at  a  loss  to  know 
how  to  make  it  plainer  than  I  have  already  made  it. 

Professor  Adams's  discussion  of  the  cost  of  running 
trains  at  high  speed  also  leaves  much  to  be  desired.  It 
is  contradictory ;  it  is  certainly  not  exhaustive,  and  I 
question  if  he  attaches  sufficient  importance  to  one  of  the 
two  elements  of  increased  cost  of  high  speed  regarded 
of  enough  weight  to  merit  consideration.  He  says : 

Much  is  said  in  the  testimony  before  the  Commission  and 
in  reports  respecting  an  allowance  in  pay  for  speed  of  carry- 
ing the  mails.  Without  questioning  the  importance  of  speed 
or  denying  that  it  is  an  element  in  cost,  though  I  think  its 
importance  overrated,  it  should  be  understood  that  the  act  of 
1873  does,  in  an  indirect  manner,  make  allowance  for  speed. 
.  .  .  .  Whether  adequately  or  not  is  another  question. 


REASONABLE  RAIL WA Y  MAIL  PAT  1 6 1 

So  far  as  speed  is  concerned,  the  expensiveness  of  speed 
to  railways  is  the  fact  that  they  cannot  make  large  hauls.  The 
absolute  expense,  as  reflected  in  the  operating  expenses,  is 
overestimated,  and  is  overestimated  in  much  of  the  testimony, 
but  it  is  not  overestimated  if  we  consider  that  the  faster  the 
train  the  less  it  can  haul.  That  is  where  the  speed  is  expen- 
sive.1 

In  the  first  of  the  two  preceding  paragraphs,  which 
follow  one  another  in  the  text,  Professor  Adams  states 
that  in  his  opinion  the  added  cost  of  running  trains  at 
high  speed  is  overestimated,  but  in  the  second  so  far 
modifies  his  statement  as  to  say  that  the  cost  is  not  over- 
estimated if  cognizance  be  taken  of  the  fact  that  the 
faster  the  speed  the  fewer  cars  the  locomotive  can  haul. 

At  a  later  stage  in  his  argument  he  reverts  to  the 
cost  of  speed  and  makes  clearer  his  objections  to  the 
contentions  of  the  railway  men,  and  sets  forth  his  own 
views  of  the  cost  of  speed  somewhat  more  explicitly. 
He  says : 

It  may  be  said  also  that  the  mail  trains  cost  more  to  run 
than  ordinary  trains,  both  because  of  the  amount  invested  in 
the  equipment  and  the  greater  speed  at  which  the  trains  go. 
So  far  as  this  is  true  it  forces  upon  one  the  consideration  of 
the  propriety  of  making  use  of  such  expensive  equipment  and 
of  demanding  such  high  speed  for  all  mails.  I  am  inclined 
to  think,  however,  that  the  expense  of  speed  is  overestimated. 
I  have  in  mind  there  the  rule  that  expense  increases  as  the 
square  of  the  speed,  which,  of  course,  is  absurd.  That  is  pos- 
sible for  coal,  or,  let  us  say,  energy.  The  expenses  which 

Ubid.,  pp.  15,  16. 


1 62  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

would  come  under  such  a  statement  do  not  include  all  the 
expenses  which  must  be  considered.  The  condition  of  the 
track,  however,  has  much  more  to  do  with  expense  of  wear 
and  tear  than  the  speed  at  which  a  train  is  run.  The  claim 
that  expense  increases  in  direct  ratio  with  resistance,  and  that 
resistance  increases  within  the  square  of  speed,  will  not  stand 
investigation.  The  true  expense  of  speed  consists  in  a  reduc- 
tion of  the  load.  The  road  loses  because  it  cannot  carry  as 

* 

,  much  freight  at  a  high  speed  as  it  can  carry  at  a  low  speed. 
\  This  is  tne  ruling  consideration  in  connection  with  speed.    In 
the  above  calculation   I  assume  ten  cars  in  a  train,  which  is 
\not  too  many  for  a  high  rate  of  speed  after  a  good  engine. 
Should  speed  be  reduced,  the  number  of  cars  might,  I  imag- 
'  °l      w  ine»  t>e  mcreased-     Permit  me  to  repeat,  however,  that  upon 
' •  /    these  questions  of  details  I  do  not  profess  to  be  an  expert.     I 
am  willing  my  line  of  argument  should  be  submitted  to  criti- 
0     «\^w    cism,  but  I  should  like  more  light  upon  certain  questions  of 
detailed  operation  before  standing  to  my  figures.1 

Exactly  what  it  costs  to  increase  materially  the  speed 
of  trains  cannot  be  ascertained.  But  it  is  clear  that  the 
expense  in  one  form  and  another  increases  rapidly  with 
an  augmentation  of  speed.  Professor  Adams,  in  a  gen- 
eral way,  is  aware  that  high  speed  means  short  trains, 
but  he  has  no  accurate  conception  of  how  rapidly  the 
size  of  the  train  must  be  reduced  to  permit  of  a  material 
increase  of  speed.  An  acceleration  of  speed  from  thirty- 
five  to  fifty  miles  per  hour  can  only  be  accomplished  by 
removing  at  least  one-half  the  cars  from  the  train.  In 
other  words,  not  less  than  two  trains  would  have  to  be 
run  where  but  one  was  run  before.  On  lines  over  which 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  24,  25. 


REASONABLE  RAIL WA T  MAIL  PAY  163 

a  first-class  locomotive  can  haul  twelve  cars  at  an  aver- 
age speed  of  thirty-five  miles,  no  more  than  five  cars  can 
be  hauled  at  an  average  speed  of  fifty  miles  per  hour. 

Professor  Adams,  in  one  of  his  calculations,  assumes 
that  ten  cars  in  a  train  are  not  too  many  for  a  high  rate 
of  speed  after  a  good  engine.1  As  he  does  not  indicate 
what  he  regards  a  high  rate  of  speed,  it  is  impossible  to 
judge  of  the  correctness  of  his  statement.  But  later  in 
his  argument,  in  reply  to  a  question  from  Mr.  Loud  as  to 
what  rate  of  speed  he  assumed  could  be  maintained  with 
ten  heavy  cars,  Professor  Adams  replied  :  "Well,  I  went 
to  Denver  last  summer  with  ten  Pullmans,  and  we  fre- 
quently attained  the  rate  of  sixty  and  sometimes  seventy 
miles  an  hour.'" 

This  single  experience  hardly  seems  a  sufficient  basis 
upon  which  to  ground  an  argument.  In  all  likelihood 
the  rate  of  speed  was  estimated,  but  even  if  it  were  accu- 
rately ascertained  it  would  make  no  difference,  for  trains 
that  are  scheduled  to  cover  but  thirty  miles  an  hour  fre- 
quently run  at  the  speed  cited  by  Professor  Adams  over 
favorable  stretches  of  track;  and,  besides,  what  can  be 
done  by  a  locomotive  over  short  stretches  of  good  track 
affords  practically  no  criterion  of  what  the  same  locomo- 
tive can  be  relied  upon  to  do  day  in  and  day  out,  up  hill 
as  well  as  down,  against  the  wind  as  well  as  with  it,  over 
slippery  as  well  as  over  dry  track,  and  over  track  abound- 
ing in  sharp  curves,  as  well  as  that  which  runs  straight 

1  Ibid.,  p.  25. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  43,  44. 


164  RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 

away.  And  then,  too,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
average  speed  while  under  way  is  materially  higher  than 
the  average  speed  maintained  between  termini,  for  in  ascer- 
taining the  latter  the  time  lost  for  stops  must  be  added. 

To  learn  how  nearly  Professor  Adams's  assumption 
that  a  good  engine  can  maintain  a  high  rate  of  speed  with 
ten  cars  squares  with  actual  practice,  I  wrote  to  the 
officials  of  several  railways  that  run  fast  mail  trains  for 
the  number  of  cars  hauled  by  their  locomotives.  The 
replies  received  go  far  in  substantiating  the  statement 
that  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  a  speed  between  termini 
of  fifty  miles  an  hour  with  more  than  five  cars.  General 
Manager  W.  A.  Gardner  of  the  North-Western  and 
General  Manager  W.  C.  Brown  of  the  Burlington  both 
stated  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  their  mail  trains  to 
make  the  speed  they  now  maintain,  which  is  about  forty- 
eight  miles  per  hour,  with  more  than  five  cars,  and  Presi- 
dent A.  J.  Earling  of  the  St.  Paul  said  their  fast  mail 
train  to  Minneapolis  could  not  make  the  time  it  is  now 
scheduled  to  make,  which  is  somewhat  slower  than  the 
trains  of  the  North-Western  and  Burlington,  with  more 
than  six  cars. 

In  discussing  the  cost  of  great  speed,  Professor 
Adams  admitted  that  there  were  other  elements  to  be 
considered  beside  the  abridgment  of  the  train,  but  he  did 
not  stop  to  weigh  them.  His  treatment  of  the  cost  of 
speed  leaves  the  impression  that  high  speed  does  not 
involve  an  extra  outlay  of  any  moment.1  There  are  a 

1  In  addition  to  the  pages  already  cited,  see  pages  43,  44. 


REASONABLE  RAIL W 'AT  MAIL  PAT  165 

number  of  items  of  cost  that  are  entirely  ignored  by 
him,  and  among  them  are  a  few  of  considerable  conse- 
quence. The  most  important  of  the  items  will  be  briefly 
presented.  In  doing  this  I  shall  draw  freely  from  a 
paper  read  at  a  recent  session  of  the  Western  Railway 
Club  by  Mr.  F.  A.  Delano,  entitled,  "What  Does  It 
Cost  to  Run  Trains  at  High  Speed  ?  " 1 

The  increased  consumption  of  fuel  incident  to  greater 
speed  by  the  locomotive,  primarily  concerned,  Professor 
Adams  perhaps  sufficiently  allows  for.  It  may,  however, 
be  added  that  the  coal  used  is  selected  coal,  broken  in 
advance,  so  that  the  fireman  will  not  be  obliged  to  break 
it,  and  may  thus  devote  himself  to  the  more  important 
work  of  keeping  his  fire,  and  that  the  consumption  of  coal 
begins  long  before  the  locomotive  is  coupled  to  the  train, 
for  the  locomotives  drawing  the  fast  trains  must  be 
"  warmed  up  "  for  their  race  by  being  run  back  and  forth 
in  the  yard  for  an  hour  or  more  before  the  serious  work 
begins.  There  is  also  a  large  increase  in  the  oil  used  on 
the  fast  runs.  On  particularly  fast  trains  from  two  to 
three  times  as  much  oil  is  consumed  as  on  the  ordinary 
trains.  There  is  no  stinting,  because  no  chances  can  be 
taken  of  hot  bearings. 

Extra-fast  trains  require  a  higher  grade  of  machinery, 
material,  and  service  than  ordinary  trains  do.  In  extra- 
fast  service  no  expense,  it  may  almost  be  said,  is  spared 

Official  Proceedings  of  Western  Railway  Club,  vol.  xii,  No.  5, 
p.  201.  After  this  chapter  was  originally  printed  Mr.  Delano  was 
called  before  the  Postal  Commission.  His  valuable  testimony  on  the 
additional  cost  of  extra  speed  may  be  found  in  Testimony,  Part  II, 
p.  503,  et  seq. 


1 66  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

to  prevent  breakdowns,  detentions,  or  failures  of  any 
kind;  even  the  waste  which  is  put  in  the  oil  boxes  of  cars 
and  engines  is  of  a  special  quality;  the  journals  are  bur- 
nished; the  brasses  are  especially  scraped  or  machined; 
and,  as  has  just  been  stated,  the  coal  used  is  selected  and 
broken  in  advance.  The  locomotive  itself  is  looked  over 
by  the  best  mechanics,  and  the  master  mechanic  gives  a 
large  share  of  his  thought  and  attention  to  the  condition 
of  the  locomotives  and  cars  in  such  trains.  In  the  super- 
intendent's and  train  dispatcher's  office  especial  attention 
is  given  to  avoid  delays;  in  the  maintenance  of  way  depart- 
ment, from  the  roadmaster  to  the  section  man,  the  constant 
thought  is  to  make  the  track  safe  for  this  special  service. 
The  added  wear  and  tear  of  rolling  stock  and  track  is 
considerable.  It  has  often  been  noted  that  on  a  new 
piece  of  track  a  heavy  locomotive  hauling  a  high-speed 
train  will  often  do  an  immense  amount  of  damage  in  throw- 
ing out  of  line  and  surface  a  track  which  has  stood  up  sat- 
isfactorily under  a  number  of  heavy  but  slow-moving 
trains.  With  old  track  in  good  condition,  the  difference 
in  the  effect  is  of  course  much  less  noticeable.  The  best 
evidence  of  the  added  cost  of  wear  and  tear  of  machinery 
is  shown  in  the  records  of  locomotive  failures.  It  has 
been  found  that  the  failures  of  locomotives  in  passenger 
service  are  in  much  greater  ratio  to  passenger  train  mile- 
age than  the  failures  in  freight  service,  and  this  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  the  best  motive  power  is  used  in  passen- 
ger service.  A  still  further  analysis  of  these  failures  shows 
that  an  overwhelmingly  large  proportion  of  the  failures 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA T  MAIL  PAY  1 67 

in  passenger  train  service  occurs  in  special  fast  passenger 
and  mail  trains,  the  failures  in  light  and  slow  passenger 
service  being  almost  ml. 

In  spite  of  the  care  that  is  taken  in  running  trains  at 
high  speed  the  risk  involved  is  too  great  to  be  ignored. 
What  this  risk  is  worth  in  terms  of  insurance  would  take 
an  actuary  with  statistics  covering  years  to  determine.  Vig- 
ilance has  reduced  accidents  in  high-speed  service  to  a 
comparatively  low  figure,  but  when  they  do  occur  the  loss 
of  life  and  property  is  almost  invariably  enormous. 

There  would  be  small  necessity  for  the  expensive 
block  and  signal  systems  were  it  not  for  the  high-speed 
trains.  Divisions  of  railroads  on  which  such  trains  are 
not  run  are  successfully  operated  without  them.  The 
expense  of  all  such  safety  appliances  does  not  enter  so 
much  in  the  first  cost  as  in  the  cost  of  maintenance,  renewal, 
and  the  wages  of  employes  attending  them. 

While  it  is  a  more  difficult  factor  to  determine,  the 
delay  of  other  trains  caused  by  the  high-speed  trains  is  a 
matter  of  great  moment,  and  perhaps  the  largest  item  of 
cost  incident  to  great  speed.  A  fast  train  following  a 
slow  one  soon  overtakes  it.  The  slow  train  must  take  a 
side  track,  for  the  fast  trains  always  have  the  right  of  way. 
To  make  certain  that  the  track  will  be  clear,  for  no  chances 
can  be  taken  of  delaying  the  fast  trains,  the  rules  usually 
require  that  freight  trains  must  be  off  the  main  line  twenty 
minutes  and  passenger  trains  ten  minutes  before  the  extra- 
fast  train  is  due.  The  extra-fast  trains  thus  have  exclu- 
sive possession  of  the  track  for  an  unusual  length  of  time, 


1 68  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

thereby  greatly  retarding  the  movement  of  all  other  trains. 
They  are  also  responsible  for  a  large  consumption  of  coal 
that  is  never  charged  to  them.  If  the  coal  burned  by  the 
trains  that  are  side-tracked  to  allow  the  fast  trains  to  pass 
were  charged  to  the  latter  their  coal  consumption  would 
be  very  largely  increased.  And  coal  is  only  one  of  sev- 
eral items  of  expense  on  freight  and  other  slow  trains 
which  are  materially  increased  by  the  running  of  extra- 
fast  trains. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  many  times  by  practical  rail- 
road men  that  the  way  to  do  a  maximum  amount  of 
business  over  a  railroad  is  to  have  the  speed  of  all  trains 
as  nearly  uniform  as  possible.  The  most  familiar  ex- 
amples of  the  great  carrying  capacity  of  railroads  mov- 
ing trains  at  a  relatively  slow  but  uniform  speed,  and 
consequently  at  frequent  intervals,  are  the  street-car 
lines  and  elevated  railroads.  When  the  statistics  of 
business  done  by  these  railways  on  holidays  are  compared 
with  those  of  the  steam  roads  the  difference  is  astonish- 
ing. The  steam  road  does  not  begin  to  do  the  business 
of  the  street-car  line  and  elevated  railway.  The  few 
extra-fast  trains  practically  monopolize  the  tracks. 

Of  the  many  remaining  comparisons  and  statements 
of  facts  made  by  Professor  Adams  that  are  open  to  criti- 
cism I  shall  examine  but  one.  Most  of  the  railway  men 
who  appeared  before  the  Postal  Commission  attempted 
to  justify  the  compensation  they  were  receiving  by  show- 
ing that  ton  for  ton  they  obtained  no  more  for  the  trans- 
portation of  mail  than  they  did  for  the  transportation  of 


REASONABLE  RAIL WA Y  MAIL  PAY       1 69 

express  matter.  Professor  Adams  following  the  same 
line  of  reasoning  arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  in  certain 
cases,  at  least,  the  railways  receive  more  from  express 
than  from  mail.  He  says: 

Any  comparison  of  railway  mail  pay  with  what  railways 
receive  from  express  companies  ....  will  show  a  relative 
overpayment  for  a  long  route  and  a  relative  underpayment  for 
a  short  route 

I  might  illustrate  that  point  by  giving  a  comparison 
between  the  rate  from  New  York  to  Buffalo,  which  I  call  a 
long  route,  and  the  rate  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York,  which 
I  call  a  short  route.  On  the  short,  for  example,  from  Phila- 
delphia to  New  York,  a  ton  of  mail  would  be  carried  for 

$6.67,  a  ton  of  express  for  $8.70 I  have  assumed  the 

loo-pound  rate  from  New  York  to  Philadelphia  is  75  cents, 
which  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  testimony  before  this  Com- 
mission, but  that  is  what  the  express  company  gave  me.  On 
the  New  York  to  Buffalo  route,  however,  the  charge  for  a  ton 
of  mail  is  $3 1. 7 3.  I  think  the  express  charge  is  $25,  or  rather 
$12.50,  which  is  one  half;  only  half  of  the  public  rate  should 
be  compared  with  the  mail.  Of  those  two  roads,  one  being 
439  miles  long  and  the  other  90  miles,  in  the  one  case  an 
overpayment  is  shown  and  the  other  case  an  underpayment.1 

On  the  shorter  of  the  two  routes  selected  by  Professor 
Adams  the  earnings  of  the  railway  company  from  mail 
are  less  than  those  from  express.  This  is  true  notwith- 
standing Professor  Adams  compared  the  average  rate 
received  for  hauling  the  mail  with  one  of  the  lowest,  if 
not  the  lowest,  rate  received  for  hauling  express.  Had 
the  express  rate  been  anywhere  near  representative  the 
comparison  would  have  shown  that  railway  earnings  from 

1  Testimony,  Part  II,  p.  13. 


1 70  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

mail  were  much  lower  than  those  from  express  matter. 
In  just  what  particulars  the  comparison  was  unfair  will 
appear  in  the  discussion  which  follows  of  his  comparison 
of  earnings  on  the  long  route. 

"  On  the  New  York  and  Buffalo  route,"  said  Professor 
Adams,  "the  charge  for  a  ton  of  mail  is  $31.73.  I  think 

the  express  charge  is  $25,  or  rather  $12.50 only 

half  of  the  public  rate  should  be  compared  with  the 
mail."  Why  but  one-half  of  the  rate  paid  by  the  public 
should  be  taken  he  later  explains  as  follows: 

The  contract  of  the  New  York  Central  Company  with  the 
express  company  operating  over  its  line  is  to  the  effect  that 
the  railway  receives  40  per  cent  of  express  earnings  as  com- 
pensation for  transportation.  It  is  this  percentage,  therefore, 
rather  than  what  the  express  company  charges  the  shipper, 
which  should  be  brought  into  comparison  with  what  the  Gov- 
ernment pays  the  railway  for  transporting  the  mail.  Railway 
officials,  however,  urge  that  their  contract  with  express  com- 
panies is  more  favorable  to  them  than  the  agreement  with  the 
Post-Office  Department  in  three  particulars:  (i)  Because  the 
express  companies  pay  their  portion  of  salaries  to  railway 
employes  in  case  railway  employes  handle  express;  (2)  because 
express  companies  perform  "gratuitous"  service  for  railway 
companies  in  handling  railway  packages;  and  (3)  because  the 
facilities  provided  for  mail  traffic  are  more  exacting  and  expen- 
sive than  for  express  traffic.  In  the  comparison  which  follows 
I  have  raised  the  40  per  cent  of  gross  express  earnings  which 
railways  receive  for  transportation  of  express  matter  to  50  per 
cent — that  is,  one-half  the  express  rate  goes  for  transportation 
service.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  most  exacting  railroad 
official  ought  to  regard  this  as  an  ample  allowance.1 

1  Ibid.,  p.  22. 


REASONABLE  RAIL WA T  MAIL  PAY  171 

An  allowance  of  10  per  cent  for  differences  in  service 
may  seem  very  liberal  to  Professor  Adams,  and  it  proba- 
bly is  a  generous  allowance  for  the  items  he  mentions. 
There  are  several  differences,  however,  which  he  does 
not  enumerate,  and  among  them  is  the  most  important 
one  of  all.  The  railways  get  paid  for  all  the  express 
matter  they  carry,  but  they  do  not  get  paid  for  all  the 
mail  they  haul.  As  was  explained  in  detail  in  the  first 
chapter,  the  mail  tonnage  hauled  by  the  railroads  is  not 
ascertained  by  actually  weighing  the  mails  for  the  entire 
period  they  are  carried.  The  law  provides  that  the  weight 
of  the  mail  on  which  the  compensation  of  the  railways  is 
calculated  shall  be  ascertained  not  less  often  than  once 
in  four  years  by  actually  weighing  the  mails  for  a  period 
of  not  less  than  thirty  successive  working  days.  In 
practice  the  weighing  is  not  done  oftener  than  the  law 
commands,  or  once  in  four  years.  The  weight  is  ascer- 
tained several  months  before  the  beginning  of  the  four- 
year  period  to  which  it  applies,  and  no  corrections  made. 
Now,  as  is  well  known,  the  volume  of  mail,  in  harmony 
with  all  other  business  and  the  growth  of  population, 
increases  by  leaps  and  bounds.  As  a  result,  the  mail 
carried  at  the  end  of  the  four-year  period  greatly  exceeds 
that  conveyed  at  the  beginning  of  the  period.  From  a 
careful  examination  of  the  quadrennial  weighings  I  find 
that  the  railways  year  in  and  year  out  carry  on  the 
average  about  8  or  9  per  cent,  more  mail  than  they  get 
paid  for  hauling.  This  being  true,  I  should  not  be  sur- 
prised if  the  railways  did  not  regard  Professor  Adams's 


1 7  2  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SEE  VICE 

addition  of  10  per  cent  as  ample  to  cover  all  the  differ- 
ences between  mail  and  express  service.  Then,  too,  on 
some  systems  the  railway's  percentage  of  the  gross  earn- 
ings of  the  express  company  greatly  exceeds  40  per  cent. 
The  Santa  Fe,  for  example,  receives  55  per  cent,  so  it 
would  not  be  at  all  astonishing  if  the  railway  men  did 
not  regard  Professor  Adams's  percentage  a  liberal  one. 
Professor  Adams's  comparison  is  unfair  for  another 
reason.  The  100-pound  package  which  he  assumes  as 
the  typical  one  is  rather  the  exceptional  one.  The 
officials  of  the  express  companies  differ  slightly  in 
their  estimates  of  the  average  weight  of  the  packages 
they  handle,  but  none  that  I  know  of  regards  the 
average  weight  as  exceeding  seven  pounds.  What  dif- 
ferent results  can  be  obtained  by  comparing  railway 
earnings  from  express  packages  of  different  weights 
with  average  earnings  from  mail  may  be  seen  from  the 
subjoined  table : 

RAILWAY    EARNINGS     FROM    MAIL    AND    EXPRESS     BETWEEN    NEW 


YORK    AND    BUFFALO.1 

50  per  cent  of  earnings  from  2,000  one-pound  pack- 
ages or  i  ton  of  express $250.00 

50  per  cent  of  earnings  from  285.7  seven-pound  pack- 
ages or  i  ton  of  express.-* 57-14 

50  per  cent  of  earnings  from  20  one-hundred-pound 

packages  or  i  ton  of  express.- 12.50 

Average  earnings  from  i  ton  of  mail „ 3X'73 

1  Earnings  from  the  two  forms  of  traffic  on  the  New  York  Cen- 
tral have  been  compared  because  the  mail  earnings  per  unit  of 
weight  are  lower  on  this  route  than  on  any  other  between  New  York 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA Y  MAIL  PAT  173 

It  is  not  surprising,  in  view  of  the  results  shown  by 
this  table,  that  Mr.  Loud  should  have  exclaimed  of 
the  comparison  on  learning  from  Professor  Adams  that 
he  had  used  one-half  of  the  100-pound  rate  on  express: 
"Then  it  is  comparatively  valueless  as  a  comparison? 
You  did  not  enter  into  the  small-parcel  business?"1 
[The  punctuation  as  given  is  manifestly  incorrect].  And 
led  him  later,  in  referring  to  this  same  comparison, 
to  say: 

Is  it  not  possible  that  there  was  a  most  important  factor 
left  out  in  that  comparison  which  might  lead  one  to  deter- 
mine the  question  from  a  wrong  standpoint  ?  That  is,  you 
could  not  have  contemplated  the  multitude  of  very  small 
packages,  money  packages.2 

What  has  been  said  in  condemnation  of  Professor 
Adams's  comparison  is  not  affected  by  his  contention 
that  the  1 00-pound  express  package  is  most  like  the 
post-office  business  so  far  as  transportation  is  con- 
cerned.3 First,  because  mail  pouches  do  not  average 
anywhere  near  100  pounds  in  weight,  and  for  the 
second  and  decisive  reason  that  the  average  weight 
of  the  mail  pouches  is  a  matter  of  little  if  any  moment, 
because  once  inside  the  car  the  contents  of  the  pouch 
are  removed  and  broken  up  for  separation.  That  a 

City  and  Buffalo.  The  earnings  as  given  above  are  the  earnings 
from  express  matter  that  pays  the  single  "  merchandise"  rate.  The 
classification  of  articles  by  express  companies  will  be  explained  a 
little  later. 

1  Testimony,  Part  II,  p.  23. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  39. 

3  Ibid. 


1 74  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

given  weight  of  mail  requires  at  least  as  much  car 
space  as  a  like  amount  of  express  matter  is  so  well 
established  that  it  would  be  a  work  of  supererogation 
to  dwell  upon  it  further. 

Professor  Adams's  comparison  of  railway  earnings 
from  mail  and  express  is  unsatisfactory  for  still  another 
reason.  The  loo-pound  rate  which  he  assumes  is  paid 
by  all  express  matter  is  simply  the  basing,  or  what  is 
known  by  the  express  companies  as  the  "  merchan- 
dise" rate.  The  express  companies  classify  commodi- 
ties very  much  as  the  railways  do,  and  therefore  a 
comparison  of  express  earnings  from  commodities  car- 
ried at  the  basing  or  single  "merchandise'*  rate  with 
average  earnings  from  mail  would  not  be  fair.  To 
make  the  point  clearer,  an  example  will  be  introduced. 
Suppose  I  wish  to  send  a  hunting  outfit  from  Chicago 
to  Kansas  City.  I  would  turn  to  Kansas  City  in  a 
tariff  book  giving  the  rates  from  Chicago,  and  would 
discover  that  the  basing  or  "merchandise"  rate  is  two 
dollars.  Then  I  would  turn  to  firearms,  and  would 
discover  that  guns,  if  "trussed  or  boxed  or  taken 
apart  and  packed  in  sole  leather  or  canvas  cases,"  would 
pay  the  single  ".merchandise"  rate,  but  to  find  what 
the  actual  charge  would  be  I  should  have  to  turn  to 
the  table  giving  the  "graduated  charges  for  packages 
weighing  less  than  100  pounds."  I  would  there  learn 
that  as  my  gun  and  case  weigh  ten  pounds,  the  charge 
on  my  gun  would  be  sixty  cents,  or  30  per  cent,  of  the 
charge  for  100  pounds.  If  my  gun  were  not  packed, 


REASONABLE  RAIL  WA T  MAIL  PAT  175 

as  above  stated,  I  should  have  to  pay  three  times  the 
"merchandise"  rate.  On  my  dog,  "if  securely  chained," 
I  would  have  to  pay  double  the  "  merchandise  "  rate, 
and  I  would  have  to  pay  for  100  pounds,  even  though 
the  dog  weighed  less.  On  my  canoe  I  would  have 
to  pay  four  times  the  "merchandise"  rate.  These 
examples  should  make  it  clear  that  a  comparison  of 
railway  earnings  from  loo-pound  packages  of  express 
matter  at  the  basing  rate  are  not  comparable  with 
average  earnings  from  mail.1 

From  what  has  been  said  in  the  preceding  pages, 
it  must  be  apparent  that  no  unusual  weight  attaches  to 
Professor  Adams's  utterances.  This  is  disappointing, 
in  view  of  the  opportunities  he  has  had  for  studying 
transportation  questions.  In  the  compilation  of  a  table 
showing  the  average  rate  per  ton  per  mile  received  by 
all  the  railways  for  carrying  mail  for  more  than  a  quarter 
of  a  century  he,  however,  rendered  a  service,  for  the  task 
was  too  much  for  any  one  to  undertake  without  the 
aid  of  a  large  corps  of  assistants.  I  had  found  it  a 
a  work  of  no  small  magnitude  to  obtain  the  data  for  a 
single  system. 

1  For  further  discussion  of  some  of  the  points  I  have  raised, 
confer  the  exceedingly  valuable  testimony  of  Mr.  Henry  S.  Julier. 
General  Manager  of  the  American  Express  Company.  This  testi- 
mony was  taken  after  this  chapter  was  originally  printed,  it  can  be 
found  in  Testimony,  Part  II,  pp.  515-528. 


A  REVIEW  OF  "A  GENERAL  FREIGHT 
AND  PASSENGER  POST" 


A   REVIEW   OF    "A   GENERAL   FREIGHT 
AND    PASSENGER   POST."1 

A  General  Freight  and  Passenger  Post  is  one  of  the 
most  unique  of  the  many  nostrums  recently  thrust  upon 
the  public.  The  reader  is  often  at  a  loss  to  know 
whether  to  take  the  work  seriously,  for  the  contradic- 
tions are  so  palpable,  many  of  the  statements  so  grossly 
inaccurate,  and  the  reasoning  often  so  specious  that  he 
is  forced  to  believe  that  a  person  having  the  dialectic 
skill,  insight,  and  knowledge  of  facts  possessed  by  its 
author  must  have  been  aware  of  the  weakness  of  its 
logic  and  the  inaccuracy  of  its  data. 

The  substance  of  A  General  Freight  and  Passenger  Post 
can  be  given   in  a   few  words.     The  main   contentions 
of   the  book  are :     ( I )    That  railroad  rates  should  be 
based  solely  upon  the   cost  of   service;    and    (2)    that 
the  postal  principle,  which  disregards  distance  in  fixing 
charges,  should  be  extended  to  freight  and  passengers. 
"Railway  rates  should  be  determined  by  the  cost  and 
not  by  the  value  of  the  service   rendered,"2  says   Mr. 
Cowles  in  his  fourth  fundamental  principle,  and  in  many 
other  places.3     In  his  fifth  fundamental  principle  he  de- 
Reprinted  from  The  Journal  of  Political  Economy,  June  num- 
ber, 1809. 
3  P.  vi. 
3  Pp.  x,  143,  207,  etc. 

179 


180  RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE 

clares :  "The  whole  business  of  public  transportation 
should  be  pooled  under  the  control  of  the  post-office, 
and  the  rate  charged  for  the  shortest  distance  for  any 
particular  service  (the  cost  of  service  rate)  should  be 
adopted  as  the  uniform  standard  rate  for  that  class 
of  service  for  all  distances  within  the  limits  of  the  postal 
system."1  "This,"  says  Mr.  Cowles,  in  stating  the  scope 
of  his  work,  "is  simply  the  'Penny  Post*  scheme  of  Sir 
Rowland  Hill,  extended  to  cover  the  general  business 
of  transportation;  and  it  presents,  I  believe,  a  practical 
solution  of  the  transportation  problem."2 

If  it  be  contended  that  rates  should  be  determined 
by  the  cost  of  service,  and  at  the  same  time  it  be 
asserted  that  the  postal  principle  should  be  extended 
to  freight  and  passengers ;  or  in  other  words  that  dis- 
tance should  be  disregarded  in  fixing  railroad  charges, 
it  must  follow  that  distance  is  not  a  varying  element 
in  the  cost  of  service.  It  must  cost  no  more  to  haul 
a  car  5,000  miles  than  to  haul  it  five  miles,  otherwise 
there  is  a  conflict  of  fundamental  principles.  Mr.  Cowles 
seems  to  understand  this,  and  sees  the  necessity  of  show- 
ing that  distance  is  not  a  factor  in  the  cost  of  service ; 
for  quoting  from  Wellington  he  says  "  the  effect  of  dis- 
tance on  operating  expenses  would  be  the  only  one 
which  there  would  be  need  to  consider."3  At  this  point 
a  demonstration  of  his  novel  proposition  would  naturally 
follow.  In  his  proof  he  adopts  his  favorite  method 
of  argument — that  of  reasoning  by  authority.  "The  rail- 
1  P.  vi.  2  P.  vi.  3  P.  vii. 


FREIGHT  AND  PASSENGER  POST  l8l 

ways  serving  New  York  City  have  had  a  uniform  rate 
on  milk  for  the  last  forty  years.  In  1887  .  .  .  this 
grouped  rate  covered  a  zone  of  220  miles.  .  .  .  Eight 
years  later  this  zone  of  uniform  milk  rate  covered  dis- 
tances up  to  330  miles,  and  Commissioner  George  R. 
Blanchard,  of  the  Joint  -  Traffic  Association,  testified 
before  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  in  Decem- 
ber, 1895,  tnat  tnere  was  no  reason  why  it  should  not 
be  extended  to  a  thousand  miles. 

But  Messrs.  Rogers,  Locke  &  Milburn,  counsel  of  the 
Delaware  &  Lackawanna  and  Western  Railroad  go  even 
further  than  Mr.  Blanchard  [continues  Mr.  Cowles],  for 
they  say :  '  The  distance  (within  which  this  rate  should 
be  uniform)  need  only  be  limited  by  the  length  of  time 
required  to  make  it  with  the  train  and  meet  the  wants 
of  the  New  York  market,  with  milk  not  affected  by 
its  transportation.' 

In  other  words,  if  milk  can  be  brought  from  San  Fran- 
cisco to  New  York  in  good  condition,  then  the  milk  rate 
should  be  the  same  for  all  distances  between  San  Fran- 
cisco and  New  York,  and  for  this  reason,  '  because  of  the 
fact  that  the  expense  incident  to  the  mere  length  of  haul 
is  so  small  in  comparison  with  the  other  necessary  charges 
when  taken  in  connection  with  the  special  service'"1 

Later  on  he  says:  ''The  grand  principles  on  which 
the  postal  systems  of  the  world  are  based  are  as  follows : 
First.  When  once  a  postal  system  is  established  the 
machinery  must  run,  and  it  makes  no  practical  differ- 

1  Pp.  viii  and  ix. 


1 82  RAIL  WA  r  MAIL  SER  VICE 

ence  in  the  cost  of  the  business  whether  a  letter  or 
a  newspaper,  or  a  parcel  is  carried  one  mile  or  a  thou- 
sand. Once  the  mail  has  started  on  its  trip,  it  is  im- 
possible to  figure  the  difference  in  cost,  whether  a  piece 
of  postal  matter  is  left  at  the  first  office  at  which  the 
mail  stops,  or  goes  to  the  farthest  office  in  the  system. 
At  every  office  a  part  of  the  mail  will  be  left  and  new 
matter  taken  on ;  one  piece  in  a  hundred  perhaps  will 
go  the  whole  route,  and  there  will  always  be  room 
for  it.  ...  Distance,  in  short,  costs  practically  noth- 
ing in  the  business  of  the  post-office,  and  therefore 
postal  rates  should  be  the  same  for  all  distances.'*1 
After  stating  the  other  two  fundamental  principles  he 
declares:  "The  experience  of  more  than  half  a  century 
has  triumphantly  demonstrated  the  truth  of  these  pro- 
positions as  applied  to  postal  freight,  and  what  is  true 
of  the  postal  business  is  equally  true  of  ordinary  railway 
traffic."* 

The  grand  principle  quoted  is  a  very  curious  piece  of 
reasoning.  Mr.  Cowles  states  that  "when  once  a  postal 
system  is  established,  the  machinery  must  run,  and  it 
makes  no  practical  difference  in  the  cost  of  the  business, 
whether  a  letter  ...  is  carried  one  mile  or  a  thou- 
sand." At  this  point  several  pertinent  questions  may 
be  asked.  Does  it  not  cost  more  to  establish  a  postal 
system  (including  the  railroads)  over  a  vast  extent  of 
territory  than  over  a  contracted  one,  the  topography 

JP.2I. 

8  P.  24.    The  italics  are  mine. 


FREIGHT  AND  PASSENGER  POST  183 

being  the  same  ?  To  assume  the  system  as  already 
established  begs  the  question.  And  does  it  not 
cost  more  to  operate  the  machinery  (including  the 
railroads)  over  the  larger  territory?  To  say  that  the 
machinery  must  run,  once  established,  does  not  make  it 
possible  to  run  railroad  trains  1,000  miles  as  cheaply  as 
they  can  be  run  100  miles.  If  a  train  were  going  to  run 
anyway,  a  letter  probably  could  be  carried  a  thousand 
miles  as  cheaply  as  one,  but  that  is  not  the  point  at  issue, 
which  is :  can  a  train  be  run  a  thousand  miles  as  cheaply 
as  one?  Mr.  Cowles  also  says:  "At  every  office  a  part 
of  the  mail  will  be  left  and  new  matter  taken  on ;  one 
piece  in  a  hundred  perhaps  will  go  the  whole  route,  and 
there  will  always  be  room  for  it."  There  must  be  a 
fallacy  lurking  in  this  statement,  for  we  all  know  that 
a  point  was  reached  when  the  camel's  back  could  not 
sustain  another  straw.  If  this  reasoning  be  sound  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  why  as  the  mail  on  a  route  increases 
in  volume,  pouches  that  once  sufficed  must  give  way  to 
to  an  apartment,  an  apartment  to  a  whole  car,  and  a  car 
in  turn  to  a  train.  Perhaps  all  Mr.  Cowles  wished  to 
state  was  that  sufficient  space  would  be  provided,  which 
is,  however,  a  very  different  thing  from  stating  that  any 
given  space  will  suffice  for  any  quantity  of  mail.  As 
business  increases  there  must  come  a  time  when  an  apart- 
ment will  not  afford  sufficient  space  to  accommodate  the 
mail,  and  a  whole  car  must  be  devoted  to  mail,  and  with 
a  further  increase  of  matter  another  car  must  be  added 
to  the  train. 


1 84  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

Distance  is  disregarded  in  fixing  postal  charges,  not 
because  it  is  a  constant  element  in  the  cost  of  service, 
but  largely,  if  not  entirely,  for  the  sake  of  convenience, 
because  it  is  impossible  to  determine  the  cost  of  service, 
and  for  the  reason  that  the  sums  involved  are  so  small 
that  they  do  not  permit  further  division.  It  has  often 
been  contended  in  the  case  of  second,  third,  and  fourth 
class  matter,  where  parcels  often  attain  considerable 
weight,  that  rates  should  vary  with  distance. 

On  page  73  Mr.  Cowles  declares  that,  "  Not  one  single 
item  of  railway  expenditure,  large  or  small,  not  even  fuel 
or  wear  and  tear  of  wheels,  varies  in  direct  ratio  to 
distance,  or  anything  like  direct  ratio,  and  more  than 
one-half  of  them  are  not  a  whit  affected  thereby,"  and 
on  page  74  he  states  that,  "  Even  the  cost  of  the  road 
itself  is  not  proportioned  to  distance."  All  these  con- 
tentions may  be  freely  granted,  although  they  are  not 
true,  and  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  distance  is  not  an 
important  factor  in  the  cost  of  service. 

The  inconsistency  of  the  author  is  brought  out  in 
strong  relief  by  the  schedule  of  passenger  rates.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  he  contends  that  railway  charges 
should  be  based  upon  the  cost  of  service.  Let  us  see 
how  consistently  he  applies  his  principle.  If  he  had  his 
way  the  passenger  post  would  include  a  local,  express, 
and  fast  post. 

"  The  Local  Post  includes  railway  trains  stopping  at 
all  stations,  and  trains  stopping  within  average  distances 
of  fifteen  miles. 


FREIGHT  AND  PASSENGER  POST  185 

The  Express  Post  includes  trains  scheduled  to  stop 
within  average  distances  of  fifteen  to  forty  miles,  and  to 
run  at  a  speed  of  not  less  than  thirty  miles  an  hour. 

The  Fast  Post  includes  trains  stopping  for  passengers 
within  average  distances  of  not  less  than  forty  miles,  and 
scheduled  to  run  at  a  speed  of  not  less  than  forty  miles 
an  hour." 

Railway  passenger  cars  are  classified  as  ordinary  and 
as  palace  cars,  and  the  fares  are  as  follows:1 

By  Local  Post,  ordinary  cars  — $0.05  per  trip. 

By  Local  Post,  palace  cars 25  per  trip. 

By  Express  Post,  ordinary  cars 25  per  trip. 

By  Express  Post,  palace  cars i.oo  per  trip. 

By  Fast  Post,  ordinary  cars i.oo  per  trip. 

By  Fast  Post,  palace  cars 5.00  per  trip. 

From  this  schedule  it  appears  that  the  charge  for 
any  trip  by  the  Fast  Post  in  a  palace  car  would  be  just 
one  hundred  times  as  much  as  for  any  trip  by  Local  Post 
in  an  ordinary  car,  and  if  a  sleeper  were  used  the  former 
charge  would  be  one  hundred  and  twenty  times  the  lat- 
ter. It  is  difficult  to  understand  these  startling  vari- 
ations on  the  principles  laid  down  and  explained  by  the 
author.  In  general,  persons  using  the  Fast  Post  and 
palace  cars  would  make  longer  journeys  than  those  using 
the  Local  Post  and  ordinary  cars,  but  Mr.  Cowles  laid  it 
down  as  one  of  his  fundamental  principles  that  distance 
not  only  may,  but  should  be,  ignored  as  an  element  of 
the  cost  of  service.  The  speed  of  the  Fast  Post  would 

1  Pp.  195,  196. 


1 86  RAILWAY  MAIL  SERVICE 

probably  be  double  that  of  the  Local  Post,  but  Mr.  Cowles 
is  also  precluded  from  introducing  greater  speed  as  an 
added  element  of  cost,  for  he  says,  "High  speed,  up  to 
the  capacity  of  a  locomotive  for  hauling  its  load,  is  far 
more  profitable  than  low  speed,  for  the  higher  the  speed 
of  the  train,  the  greater  the  possible  use  of  the  whole 
equipment.*'1  He  goes  even  further  than  this.  On  the 
basis  of  his  own  reasoning  the  train  making  frequent 
stops  is  the  more  expensive  to  operate,  and  fares  on  this 
train  should  be  the  higher  if  fixed  on  the  basis  of  the 
cost  of  service,  for  he  says:  "The  mere  stopping  and 
starting  of  a  train  running  thirty  miles  an  hour  wastes 
power  enough  to  haul  it  two  miles,  and  the  cost  of  the 
stop  of  an  average  train  is  estimated  at  about  forty 
cents." 2  On  the  basis  of  cost  the  passenger  riding  in  a 
palace  car  should  undoubtedly  pay  much  more  than  the 
person  traveling  in  an  ordinary  car,  for  the  former's  sur- 
roundings are  much  more  comfortable  and  luxurious,  and 
the  passenger  in  the  palace  car  probably  occupies  two  or 
three  times  as  much  space  as  the  passenger  in  the  ordi- 
nary car.  But  after  liberal  allowance  has  been  made  for 
all  the  differences  in  service,  which  Mr.  Cowles  considers 
real,  it  is  impossible  to  understand  how  the  cost  can  be 
one  hundred  times  greater  in  one  case  than  in  the 
other. 

One  point  yet  remains  to  be  considered,  namely,  the 
reliability   of  the  data  introduced  by  Mr.  Cowles.     In 

1  P.  82  ;  see  also  pp.  83  and  88. 

2  P.  74- 


FREIGHT  AND  PASSENGER  POST  187 

attempting  to  show  that  the  railways  receive  excessive 
pay  for  carrying  the  mail  he  says  Postmaster-General 
Wanamaker  found  that  "nearly  60  per  cent  of  our  mail 
bags  travel  within  zones  of  350  miles."1  Mr.  Wana- 
maker made  no  test  that  I  have  been  able  to  discover  to 
find  the  average  distance  mail  bags  travel.  He  did, 
however,  attempt  to  ascertain  the  average  distance  each 
piece  of  mail  matter  is  carried.  From  the  results  he 
gives  it  may  be  stated  that  approximately  60  per  cent  of 
the  pieces  travel  within  zones  of  5O02  miles — not  350 
miles,  as  given  by  Mr.  Cowles.  He  also  states  that  "  the 
railroad  tax  for  the  haul  of  United  States  mail  bags,  for 
average  trips  of  less  than  450  miles,  is  eight  cents  a 
pound."  ;  No  one  knows  the  number  of  pounds  of  mail 
transported  by  the  railroads  or  the  average  distance  each 
pound  is  carried.  Mr.  Cowles  also  states  that,  "The 
deficits  in  the  business  of  the  post-office  in  recent  years 
are  easily  accounted  for  by  the  burdensome  taxes  levied 
by  our  railway  kings.  These  taxes  remain,  in  most 
cases,  at  the  same  rate  to-day  as  in  1878."  *  If  this 
statement  read — These  taxes  remain,  in  a  few  cases,  at 
the  same  rate  to-day  as  in  1878,  it  would  very  much 
more  nearly  conform  to  the  facts.  The  rate  of  pay  fixed 
by  law  decreases  very  rapidly  with  an  increase  of  weight, 
as  will  be  seen  by  the  subjoined  table : 

1  P.  240. 

2  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1889,  pp.  91-93.     This  test 
was  unsatisfactory  for  reasons  explained  on  page  78  et  seq. 

8  P.  180. 
4  P.  17. 


1 88  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 


RATES    PAID    FOR    TRANSPORTATION    OF    MAIL    ON    BASIS    OF 


WEIGHT. 


Average  Daily  Weight  of  Mail  Rate  per  Ton 

over  Whole  Route.  per  Mile. 

200  pounds.. $1.17 

500          "         -_       .70 

1,000  "          .468 

2,000  "          - 351 

4,000  "  -_ 214 

5,000  "  187 

20,000  "  .090 

50,000  "  .070 

100,000  "  -      .064 

200,000  "  .061 

300,000  "  .060 

Consequently  only  on  those  postal  routes  where  there 
has  been  no  increase  of  weight  can  it  be  said  that  there 
has  been  no  decline  in  the  rate  of  pay.  As  the  popula- 
tion of  most  parts  of  our  country  has  increased  rapidly 
since  1878,  and  this  increase  has  been  accompanied  by  a 
largely  increased  weight  of  mail,  it  is  perfectly  safe  to 
say  that  in  general  there  has  been  a  large  decline  in  the 
rate  of  pay  because  of  the  sliding  scale  of  pay  fixed  by 
law,  although  the  law  itself  has  not  been  altered  since 
1878.  But  one  more  statement  will  be  introduced  to 
show  the  inaccuracies  that  abound  in  this  work.  "The 
post-office  of  to-day,"  declares  Mr.  Cowles,  "pays  50 
per  cent,  more  for  the  transportation  of  a  ton  of  mail 
bags  from  New  York  to  Buffalo  by  railway  than  it  used 
to  cost  to  send  ordinary  freight  the  same  distance  by 

Senate  Report  No.  991,  p.  124,  55th  Congress,  2d  sees. 


FREIGHT  AND  PASSENGER  POST  189 

boat  and  by  wagon,  in  the  days  before  the  opening  of 
the  Erie  canal.  ....  the  railways  tax  the  Govern- 
ment 8  cents  a  pound,  $8  a  hundred,  $160  a  ton,  for  the 
transportation  of  its  mail  bags  for  an  average  haul  not 
over  442  miles."1  And  later  Mr.  Cowles  says:  "Taking, 
then,  442  miles,  about  the  distance  from  New  York  to 
Buffalo,  as  the  average  haul  of  a  mail  bag  ....  we 
find  that  the  railroads  tax  the  Government  $160  a  ton 
for  a  haul  that,  in  the  days  before  the  building  of  the 
Erie  canal,  cost  private  individuals,  by  ox  team  and  sail- 
ing vessel,  but  $100 "2  The  great  bulk  of 

the  mail  carried  between  New  York  and  Buffalo  is  hauled 
by  the  New  York  Central  and  Hudson  River  Railroad. 
The  compensation  received  by  this  company  per  ton  for 
transporting  the  mail  over  this  route  since  June  30,  1897, 
the  date  of  the  last  readjustment,  has  been  somewhat 
less  than  one-fifth  of  the  sum  stated  by  Mr.  Cowles,  or 
$3i.67.3  It  is  difficult  to  excuse  this  error,  for  the  facts 
can  be  readily  obtained  from  the  reports  of  the  post- 
masters-general. 

These  are  only  a  few  of  the  gross  inaccuracies  that 
abound  in  the  book,  but  they  will  probably  suffice  to 
show  that  the  facts  given  can  never  be  accepted  without 
verification.  This  is  rendered  difficult  because  the  author 
very  rarely  cites  his  sources  except  in  a  very  general 
way. 

!?.  7.  2  P.  241. 

'Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1897,  p.  407.  This  sum 
includes  pay  for  the  railway  post-offices  as  well  as  that  made  on  the 
basis  of  weight  carried. 


A  REVIEW  OF  "THE  POSTAL  DEFICIT" 


A  REVIEW  OF  "THE  POSTAL  DEFICIT"1 

Much  of  the  valuable  matter  contained  in  the  testi- 
mony recently  submitted  to  Congress  by  the  Joint  Con- 
gressional Commission  on  Postal  Affairs  is  compressed 
into  this  little  volume.  The  Commission  during  the 
three  years  of  its  very  active  existence  obtained  a  vast 
amount  of  information  concerning  the  recurring  deficits 
of  the  Post-Office  Department.  As  would  be  expected, 
however,  the  wheat  gathered  was  mixed  with  a  great  deal 
of  chaff.  To  all  but  patient  students  with  ample  time  the 
valuable  matter  collected  might  be  lost  but  for  the  dili- 
gent winnowing  of  Professor  Newcomb. 

As  might  be  inferred  from  what  has  been  said,  no 
new  light  has  here  been  shed  upon  the  subjects  investi- 
gated by  the  Commission.  It  is  fair  to  add  that  this 
is  acknowledged  by  the  author.  In  referring  to  his 
chief  source  of  information,  he  says:  "The  Commission 
has  collected  and  published  an  exceedingly  valuable 
mass  of  testimony.  This  testimony  and  the  data  col- 
lected by  the  agents  especially  employed  to  investigate 
different  phases  of  the  question  submitted  to  the  Com- 
mission contain  material  for  a  most  accurate  and  com- 
plete description  of  postal  activities  and  methods.  This 

1  Reprinted  from  the  Journal  of  Political  Economy,  March  num- 
ber, 1901. 


1 94  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

information  has  been  liberally  drawn  upon  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  present  work."  l 

That  Professor  Newcomb  has  not  cited  more  fully 
and  definitely  is  cause  for  regret.  A  work  of  compila- 
tion loses  much  of  its  value  through  omissions  of  this 
character.  As  there  are  no  page  references  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Commission,  and  no  references  at  all  to  some 
of  the  other  sources  drawn  upon,  the  investigator  will 
not  obtain  much  assistance  from  "The  Postal  Deficit" 
should  he  wish  to  pursue  his  inquiries  beyond  the  con- 
tents of  this  meager  volume. 

Writing  as  he  does  after  most  of  the  field  has  been 
thoroughly  gone  over,  it  is  disappointing  to  find  Pro- 
fessor Newcomb  accepting  unquestioned  some  statements 
which  should  at  once  be  challenged  by  the  trained  sta- 
tistician and  economist.  For  lack  of  space,  only  one 
or  two  of  these  can  be  introduced.  Over  and  over  again 
it  has  been  stated  that  if  the  postal  service  were  not 
given  to  remote  and  sparsely  settled  portions  of  the 
country,  there  would  be  no  deficit  in  the  Post-Office 
Department.  In  other  words,  the  operations  of  the 
Department  are  extremely  profitable  in  the  large  cities 
and  on  the  heavy  railway  mail  routes.  As  evidence  of 
this,  the  enormous  postal  receipts  in  the  large  cities  and 
the  low  rate  per  ton  per  mile  on  the  heavy  postal  routes 
are  cited.  Says  Professor  Newcomb:  "The  citizens  of 
New  York,  whose  mail  traffic  is  immensely  profitable, 
have  never  protested,  because  the  revenues  to  which 

1  Pages  91,  92. 


A  REVIEW  OF  «  THE  POSTAL  DEFICIT"          195 

they  contribute  so  generously  are  diverted  to  the  support 
of  the  extremely  costly  services  that  are  rendered  in 
Alaska  and  in  the  panhandle  of  Texas.  The  average 
cost  of  sending  each  letter  of  the  letters  composing  the 
first  lot  of  mail  sent  to  Circle  City,  Alaska,  is  reported  as 
$450,  in  return  for  which  the  post-office  received  only 
the  price  of  a  two-cent  stamp,  the  same  amount  that 
carries  a  letter  from  the  Battery  to  Harlem,  in  New  York 
City."1  And  on  a  later  page  he  says:  "If  it  is  proper, 
as  is  admitted  without  perceptible  objection,  to  tax 
heavily  the  mail  of  90  per  cent,  of  the  population  in 
order  that  the  facilities  supplied  to  the  remainder  shall 
be  greatly  in  excess  of  their  ability  or  willingness  to  pay, 
there  would  appear  to  be  little  harm  in  imposing  a  small 
general  tax  in  order  to  offset  a  slight  difference  between 
receipts  and  expenditures"2  in  the  Post-Office  Depart- 
ment. 

There  are  here  at  least  two  fundamental  misconcep- 
tions. These  will  be  pointed  out  only  in  a  rough  way. 
Postal  taxes,  if  this  term  may  be  used,  are  not  really 
paid  by  the  persons  who  purchase  stamps  any  more 
than  tariff  duties  are  really  paid  by  the  importers.  In 
either  case  the  money,  nine  times  out  of  ten,  is  merely 
advanced.  The  publishers  and  jobbers  of  the  large  cities 
expect  to  recoup  themselves.  The  consumer  pays  the 
tax,  just  as  he  generally  does  in  the  case  of  the  duty  on 
imported  goods.  If  it  were  not  for  the  people  who  live 
outside  of  the  thickly  inhabited  portion  of  the  country 
1  Pages  9,  10.  2Page  n. 


1 96  RAIL  WA  T  MAIL  SER  VICE 

the  mail  in  the  centers  of  population  would  amount  to 
but  a  small  fraction  of  its  present  volume. 

Equally  significant  is  Professor  Newcomb's  second 
misconception.  In  both  the  quotations  given  above  the 
idea  is  conveyed  that  a  sharp  geographical  division  of  the 
country  and  people  is  possible.  In  the  first  quotation  he 
says:  "The  citizens  of  New  York  .  .  .  have  never 
protested  because  the  revenues  to  which  they  contribute 
so  generously  are  diverted  to  the  support  of  the  extremely 
costly  services  that  are  rendered  in  Alaska  and  in  the 
panhandle  of  Texas."  The  people  of  New  York  have  as 
much  need  of  communication  with  those  of  the  remote 
portions  of  the  country  as  the  latter  have  with  the  former. 
Neither  community  can  live  by  itself.  The  very  exam- 
ple selected  by  the  author  disproves  his  contention.  He 
says  :  "  The  cost  of  sending  each  of  the  letters  compos- 
ing the  first  lot  of  mail  sent  to  Circle  City,  Alaska,  is 
reported  as  $450."  The  proposition  that  the  business  of 
the  Post-Office  Department  could  be  done  at  less  cost 
were  all  the  people  settled  on  a  limited  amount  of  terri- 
tory is  one  that  probably  no  one  would  question. 


STATISTICAL  APPENDIX 


STATISTICAL  APPENDIX 

TABLE   I. 

WEIGHT  BY  CLASSES  OF  MAIL  ORIGINATING  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.1 


Class. 

Weight  for 
35  Days. 

Per  Cent  of 
Total  Weight. 

First  class                            

Pounds. 
O  008  882 

606 

Second  class  

-37  820  8S7 

2C  To 

Second  class  free 

•3    T  J.O  d.6d. 

2  OO 

Third  and  fourth  class 

1  1  087  067 

•AMJ 

Q  12 

Government  free 

O  2l8  2O"3. 

9O^ 
o  14 

Equipment 

76  866  032 

CT  2O 

}i..nj 

Total 

T  CQ  T  -12  1(X 

IOO  OO 

1This  table  includes  mail  for  local  delivery  and  all  mail  dis- 
patched from  all  post-offices  of  the  United  States  by  steam  railroads, 
electric  cars,  steamboats,  and  on  star  routes  or  otherwise.  It  does  not 
include  foreign  mail,  for  this  of  course  does  not  originate  in  the 
United  States.  The  data  from  which  this  table  was  compiled  may  be 
found  in  the  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1900,  p.  258. 


199 


200 


RAILWAT  MAIL  SERVICE 


TABLE    II. 

WEIGHT   BY   CLASSES   OF   MAIL   SENT   TO   RAILROADS.1 


Class. 

Weight  for 
35  Days. 

Per  Cent  of 
Total  Weight. 

First  class 

Pounds. 
6  06  c  218 

Second  class 

l6  606  ooo 

28'S 

Second  class  free 

I  920  925 

Third  and  fourth  class                          -  

I2,o66  660 

O  14 

Foreign                                -  --     -  -  

2  800.1;  40 

Government  free 

8  291  332 

6  42 

Equipment 

62  526  682 

48  40 

Total  _ 

120.178.10; 

IOO.OO 

1  The  data  from  which  this  table  was  compiled  may  be  found  in 
the  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1900,  pp.  259-261. 

2  All  foreign  matter  (Cuban,  Mexican,  and  Canadian)  received 
direct  by  border  post-offices  and  shipped  to  railroads  is  included 
under  proper  classes,  and  the  weight  of  this  matter  is  not  separately 
reported  and  cannot  be  ascertained.    The  matter  received  by  railway 
post-office  trains  direct  from  Cuban,  Mexican,  and  Canadian  connec- 
tions was  131,350  pounds.    The  matter  received  at  New  York  from 
steamships  and  transferred  direct  to  railroads,  and  reported  in  column 
of  "  Foreign,"  was  291,473  pounds. 

TABLE   III. 

WEIGHT   OF  FREE   AND    PAID    MAIL    MATTER    ORIGINATING  IN  THE 
UNITED   STATES.1 


Weight  for  the 
35  Days 
Beginning 
October  3  and 
Ending 
November  6,1899. 

Estimated 
Weight  for  365 
Days  on  theBasis 
of  the  Weight 
Ascertained 
for  35  Days. 

Per  Cent  of 
Total  Weight. 

Mail  from  which  revenue 
was  derived  -  

Pounds. 
60,007.706 

Pounds. 
6^.180.^62 

4O  t»7 

Mail  from  which  no  rev- 
enue was  derived 

80  224  600 

o^o  486  1  16 

CQ  47 

DV'^J 

Total  

150,132,405 

i.;6i;  666,t;o8 

IOO.OO 

1  The  data  from  which  this  table  was  prepared  may  be  found  in 
the  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1900,  p.  258.  For  details  by 
classes,  see  Table  I. 


STATISTICAL  APPENDIX 
TABLE   IV. 

WEIGHT  OF  FREE   AND  PAID    MAIL  SENT  TO  RAILROADS.1 


201 


Weight  for 
35  pays 
Beginning 
October  3  and 
Ending 
November  6,  1899. 

Estimated 
Weight  for  365 
Days  on  the  Basis 
of  the  Weight 
Ascertained 
for  35  Days. 

Per  Cent  of 
Total  Weight. 

Mail  from  which  revenue 
was  derived  - 

Pounds. 

56,430,366 

Pounds. 

588,581,050 

d3.6o 

Mail  from  which  no  rev- 
enue was  derived  

72,738,939 

758,563,221 

1  6.  3  1 

Total  

I2Q  178.^01; 

I  ^4.7.141  l8o 

IOOOO 

1  The  data  from  which  this  table  was  prepared  may  be  found  in 
the  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1900,  p.  261.  For  details  by 
classes,  see  Table  II. 

TABLE  V. 

ESTIMATE  OF  THE  TOTAL  AMOUNT  OF  MAIL  ORIGINATING  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES  IN  A  YEAR,  AND  THE  PORTION  OF  IT  SENT  TO 
RAILROADS,  TOGETHER  WITH  A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  FOREIGN 
MAIL  SENT  TO  RAILROADS.1 


Class. 

Weight  for 
365  Days. 

Amount  Sent 
to  Railroads. 

Difference, 
Local  Mail. 

Per  Cent 
to 
Railroads. 

First  class 

Pounds. 
04.  888  341 

Pounds. 
72  637  186 

Pounds. 

22  250.755 

76.55 

Second  class 

3Q4.4I7  5O5 

38l  757.766 

12,650,730 

o6.7Q 

Second  class,  free. 
Third    and    fourth 
class 

32,750,550 
14?  874.  5l8 

20,032,503 
125  838  O2? 

12,718,047 

20.036.403 

vv*/v 

61.16 

86.26 

Government,  free- 
Equipment 

96,132,692 
80  1  6O2  OO2 

86,466,748 
6C2  06^  O7O 

9,665,944 

140,538,032 

89.94 

81.34 

Foreisrn 

8  348  ;82 

IOO.OO 

Total 

i  565  666  508 

I  34.7  I4.5.l8o 

226,869,910 

86.04 

1  The  data  from  which  this  table  was  prepared  may  be  found  in 
the  Report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  1000,  p.  258.  The  estimates 
are  based  upon  the  results  obtained  from  the  actual  weighing  of 
thirty-five  days,  extending  from  October  3  to  November  6,  1809, 
already  presented  in  Tables  I  and  II. 


202 


RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 


TABLE  VI. 

MAXIMUM    RATES    ON    BASIS    OF  WEIGHT    FOR    TRANSPORTATION    OF 
MAIL  BY   RAILROADS.1 


Average  Weight  of  Mails  per  Day  Carried 
over  Whole  Length  of  Route. 

PAY  PER  MILK  PER  ANNUM. 

Rates  Allowable  under  Act 
of  March  3,  1873. 

Rates  Allowable  under  Acts 
of  July  12,  1876,  and  June  17, 
1878. 

Rates  Allowable  to  Land-Grant 
Railroads,  being  80  Per  Cent 
of  Allowance  to  Other  Rail- 
roads, under  Act  of  July  12, 
1876. 

Intermediate  Weight  Warrant- 
ing Allowance  of  $i  per  Mile 
under  the  Custom  of  the  De- 
partment, Subject  to  Acts  of 
July  12,  1876,  and  June  17,1878. 

2OO  pounds 

$50.00 

$42.75 

$34.20 

Pounds. 

200  to  500  pounds  -  

12 

500  pounds  

75.00 

64.12 

51-30 

50010  i,  ooo  pounds  

20 

i  ooo  pounds 

100.00 

85.50 

6840 

i  ooo  to  i  500  pounds 

20 

1,500  pounds 

125.00 

106.87 

85.50 

1,500  to  2,000  pounds       -     -  -- 

20 

2,000  pounds  

I5O.OO 

128.25 

102.60 

2,000  to  3,500  pounds  

60 

3  500  pounds 

175.00 

149.62 

119.70 

3  500  to  5  ooo  pounds 

60 

5  ooo  pounds                     --- 

200.OO 
25.00 

171.00 
21.37 

136.80 

17.10 

For  every  additional  2,000  pounds-- 
over 5,000  pounds  

80 

No  allowance  is  made  for  weights  not  justifying  the  addition  of  $i. 
1  This  table  was  taken  from  page  5  of  the  pamphlet  of  instruc- 
tions issued  by  the  Second  Assistant  Postmaster-General. 

TABLE  VII. 

PAYMENTS   FOR   POST-OFFICE   CARS.1 


Length  of  Car. 

Rate  per  Mile 
of  Track 
per  Annum. 

Rate  per  Mile 
Run  by 
Cars. 

40  feet 

S2S  OO 

Cents. 
•3  424. 

At        " 

•2Q  OO 

4.  IOO 

15 

Cn     "                                                       

4O  OO 

C.47Q 

55  to  60  feet                   

5O.OO 

6.840 

JSee  55th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Senate  Report.  No.  091,  p. 
an  explanation  of  this  table  see  p.  16. 


124.    For 


STATISTICAL  APPENDIX 
TABLE  VIII. 


203 


RATES  PER  TON  OF  MAIL  AND  RATES  PER  MILE  OF  TRACK  PER 
ANNUM,  UNDER  THE  LAW  OF  1873,  AS  AMENDED.1 


Average  Weight 
of  Mail  Carried 
Over  Entire 
Route  per  Day. 

Rate  per 
Ton-Mile 
of  Mail. 

Pay  per 
Mile  of 
Route  per 
Annum. 

AverageWeight 
of  Mail  Carried 
Over  Entire 
Route  per  Day. 

Rate  per 
Ton-Mile 
of  Mail. 

PMaK 

Route  per 
Annum. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

200 

81.17123 

$42.75 

7,500 

$0.14493 

$198.37 

250 

1.02466 

46.75 

8,000 

.13998 

204.37 

300 

.92694 

50.75 

8,500 

.13562 

210.37 

350 

.85714 

54.75 

9,000 

.13014 

213.75 

400 

.80479 

58.75 

9,500 

.12675 

219.75 

450 

.76408 

62.75 

10,000 

.12370 

225.75 

600 

.70274 

64.12 

11,000 

.11712 

235.12 

550 

.65878 

66.12 

12,000 

.11284 

247.12 

600 

.63128 

69.12 

13,000 

.10811 

256.50 

650 

.59958 

71.12 

14,000 

.10509 

268.50 

700 

.58023 

74.12 

15,000 

.10151 

277.87 

750 

.55616 

76.12 

16,000 

.09927 

289.87 

800 

.64195 

79.12 

17,000 

.09645 

299.25 

850 

.52297 

81.12 

18,000 

.09475 

311.25 

900 

.51218 

84.12 

19,000 

.09247 

320.62 

950 

.49315 

85.50 

20,000 

.09113 

332.62 

1,000 

.46849 

85.50 

21,000 

.08924 

342.00 

1,100 

.45081 

90.50 

22,000 

.08817 

354.00 

1,200 

.43607 

95.50 

23,000 

.08657 

363.37 

1,300 

.42360 

100.50 

24,000 

.08570 

375.37 

1,400 

.41292 

105.50 

25,000 

.08433 

384.75 

1,500 

.39041 

106.87 

30,000 

.08027 

439.50 

1,600 

.38313 

111.87 

35,000 

.07697 

491.62 

1,700 

.37671 

116.87 

40,000 

.07485 

546.37 

1,800 

.37100 

121.87 

45,000 

.07288 

598.50 

1,900 

.36590 

126.87 

50,000 

.07159 

653.25 

2,000 

.35137 

128.25 

55,000 

'     .07027 

705.37 

2,100 

.33725 

129.25 

60,000 

.06942 

760.12 

2,200 

.32690 

131.25 

65,000 

.06847 

812.25 

2,300 

.31745 

133.25 

70,000 

.06787 

867.00 

2,400 

.30651 

134.25 

75,000 

.06715 

919.12 

2,500 

.29863 

136.25 

80,000 

.06670 

973.87 

2,600 

.29136 

138.25 

85,000 

.06614 

1,026.00 

2,700 

.28260 

139.25 

90,000 

.06580 

1,080.75 

2,800 

.27642 

141.25 

95,000 

.06534 

1,132.87 

2,900 

.27067 

143.25 

100,000 

.06508 

1,187.62 

3,000 

.26347 

144.25 

125,000 

.06372 

1,453.50 

3,500 

.23425 

119.62 

150,000 

.06290 

1,722.00 

4,000 

.21592 

157.62 

175,000 

.06224 

1,987.87 

4,500 

.20167 

165.62 

200,000 

.06182 

2,256.37 

5,000 

.18740 

171.00 

225,000 

.06142 

2,522.25 

5,500 

.17634 

177.00 

250,000 

.06117 

2,790.75 

6,000 

.16712 

183.00 

275,000 

.06090 

3,056.62 

6,500 

.15933 

189.00 

300,000 

.06073 

3,325.12 

7,000 

.15059 

192.37 

Limit 

.05856 

1  The  average  weights  and  amounts  of  pay  per  mile  per  annum  in  black 
figures  are  explicitly  prescribed  in  the  laws  mentioned;  the  others  are  computed 
from  these  according  to  the  weights  prescribed  by  the  Postmaster-General  as  war- 
ranting the  addition  of  $1.00  to  the  annual  pay  per  mile;  these  weights  may  be 
found  in  the  last  column  of  Table  VI.  Amounts  not  warranting  the  addition  of  an 
entire  dollar  are  neglected. 

The  laws  prescribe  that  for  each  additional  2,000  pounds  above  5,000  pounds 
there  shall  be  paid  $21.37^  per  mile  of  route  per  annum. 

This  table  may  be  found  on  p.  249,  Part  II,  of  the  testimony  taken  by  the  Joint 
Congressional  Commission  on  Postal  Affairs. 


204 


RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 


§  rt  oo"  lf1r<?t>'^"P   Q"00.  °°.°.'^"H1VO.c?TtPr1f1h1c<I?0.  ^0  ^^  ^  ^° 

1  *  •"  M  '    0*^06  vO*  N  HH   o  Q  iovo"  co  vo  N  O  •-*  IN-  O  vovo*  vo  co  vo  TJ-VO*  OO 

[    N    CO  Tf  XOVO   t^  O  N   vr 

I 

co  10  o  ovo  1-1  ooo  10  HH  r>»  t^oo  covo  10  o  >->  "*oo  >-<  *->  ovo  10  rv 

C*    Th  O   10OO  VO«-i    CO  O  OO   vo  O  O    O    O  O   VO  f>»  CX>O    N    N    rt-  N  OO    "-" 

5O  >-i  vo  N  T*-  10  N  "-<  ^  I-H  rt- 1-^  N  coco  cOOO  N  OO  VQ   ON  covo  O   <->       t^ 

Tt*  HH  ^~vO  t^  O  ^"  t*^  vo  CO  N  O   O  CO  ^"  N  OO  N   |— *   O  CO 
N  COCOCOCOCO1^-'*  iovO  t^.00  OO   O  O  *•«  N  -^l-vo  t-^  O 

N  N  vO  t^«OO  VO  10 10  t-ioo  HH   OOOOVOVO  N  ^J-NVO  O^OCO'-'  O 
r  )  2  w  ^"  "^  ^  O   COOO   O   tv-  ^^OO   N   Tt1  10  IOVO   "-"   t^siOCOi-i   rtOVO   CO  HH 

B fc.  c5  ^-od  o*  o*  >-*  t>« r^ covo  i^"-*  N'OO  c*  >-*oo"od  loiocotA  ovo  o 

M   i_  _  cO'^-n-Tj-iot^O'-i  coioiooo  "-"  N  -*VOOO  O   O  O  *-*  N 
i_ii-iHHi-it-ic^NNNNCOCOcOcOCO 

rt       £3  u^  ^^  O  N  O  1^  N   CO  OOO  *^  N  10  OvO  CO  O  O   O   O  "^  10  t^*  ^hVO  N 

^     .2  •^t'-'d-i-it^i-'O  OVO  N  >-i  -^-  O  "3-OO  vOOOOOOO  O   O  1XOCON  IO*H 

*•      .  -!tvoO'-^t^cooi*t;N  covq^  cooq^  cooo^  t^.  •*vo^  o  10 10 10 1^.  co  covo 
2  "-"^  o"  •*  "-^06*  o"  N"  tC  HH"  1006^  H^  o"  o  o  10  N"  10  o  **  o"  i^  tCvo"  o"  ^ 

^    N  VO  10  rl-ioN   OON   OO':!"'-'   OOO  OOO'-'^cOiO'-it-iO   OOO 

^   10 N"  10 tCio N"  covo"  co  co  O  cT  >^  10  o ^  ^?  1000"  O  cT  T?  tCoo"  co  i-T     vo" 
VO  t*x  t^  t^OO   O  O  O  O  "-1  N  ^  iovO  VO  OO  O  "-<  N  co  iovO  VO  vO  t^sOO       HH 

M    M^M    M    M    M    M   M    A    ft   Ci    VI   W   N    91  H   tl    CI          CO 

<     H 

C  mK  _,  _  MM 

rj2*  i  t>»  o  »o  o  o  ^  i-r>  •"*  co  >-ooo  N  r~x  o  co  10  ovo  o  co  o  t^  ooo  oo 

o3^«  j         '-INCO'*^-  iovO  VO  OO  O  *•<  N   •«*•  iovO  VO   OO   N  N  coco^^- 

Mt-.hHHHMHHHHI-.nNNNNNN 

O  >>£  r^ONOO  O  IOCON  t^co  OVO  VOOO  cO^J-'-t   O*->OO  O  ^"VO  OO   O  CO 

5    OvO  10  ^^vO  N  O   OVO   O  ^^  N  O  vO  10  ^"OO  ^^  ^^  OVO  1000  OO  N   O 

>  ooo^  o  i^  o  Om  c^  c-^  o^vq^  t^.  ovq^oq^  ^vq^  i>.  ooo^  ovo  ^t-  co  rt-  ^oo 
;  o  •*  o  -^-oo"  "-r<*t^o'1>-<'coi-roo"  H-Tvo"  co  -^Foo"  co  o"  N"OO"OO"  o"  o" 
;  •*  »o  iovO  vo  t^.  t^.  t^oo  OO  Opp'-'NNcoco^i-  iovO  vo  vo  vo  t^.  t-x 

&_ 

i   t-i   O  t^vO   O    0 10  N    ^J-  O  OO   COOO  10  HH  OO   HH   Tj-OO   O  OO   N  t"^  M 
i   i-HO'-'NNiot^Mi-iO  ^"OO  >o  N  ^-VO   O  N  t>»  COVO  VO  O  "-" 
j  VO  VO  COOO    H!  VO*  OO    N    COOO   t^.  10  CO  -4-  >-*   t~".  10  tv.VO   10  t-I   CO  O  !>.  VO 
•-t  N  CO  CO  Tf  •<*•  -^-VO  t^  O  **  CO  -^"VO  OO  O  N  VO   O  COVO  CO  OO  H<  N 
I  i-ii-ii-ii-ii-iNNNNCOCOCOCO^Tj- 

10  t^  ^-OO  ^l-OO  t^MNcOOOOO  Oco  OOO  CO  COOO  10  N  ^  t^.  I-H 
f>l  N  10 10  TfVO  CO^•t^»^^CON  rJ-OiO  COVO  N  1O  O  CO  N  ON  CO  CO 
t>»vo  10  COOO  N  t-i  HH  vo  iovO  t^i-H  c>ivo  NVO  Tt-N  O)S>.l>»cOi-H  O  ^1" 
N"  co  covo"oo"  O"  N"  CO  r?  co  10 10  COOO"  vo"vo"  OOO  •*ti-"xcOT?ioi-ro"cO 
N  t^  1000  >-<  i-ivo  O  t^-Oi-iOOOOOO  CO  i^iVO  vo  1000  O  >-•  -^J-  O  CO  JN 
,j  w  -  •  vovoi-ivOONvot^.iON^O'-'  COOO  N  CO  O  N  OOO  CO  1-1  vo  O  tv.  f^ 

vo"  tCoo"oo"  O  C>  O  O  o"  *H"  N"  •*  vo  10  Koo"  o"  i-T  co  vooo"  o"  «-T  H-T  co  T? 

i_ii-iHHi-ii-4i-Hi-ii-4C^NNNNcOCOCOCOCO     VO 


co  Tf  lovo  t>>.OO  O  O  "-I  N  co 
l>»  t>»  t^  t^.  t^.  t^s  t>«oO  OOOOOO 
00000000000000000000000 


O  O  >-< 
O 
00 


Pu 


STATISTICAL  APPENDIX 


205 


X  g 

W  o 

rJ  O 

fQ  U 

js : 


21 


j  id  .-H  o  90  so  oi  »-5  cj 
|.coSSSS884 


'' 


*fO'^QOrHl 


'iHicSidoJodeoccoaoTiSoi-^i-J 


0     'rH     • 


«N 


~«  to 

II 

2 

§3 

«£: 

|  8 

Is 


».s§ 

-*-»     0*3 


—  U 
ken 

i  It  o 


&  «8 


§2 


206 


RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 


Q 
2 

< 

W 

is' 


^  5 
w  2 

^2 

W  w 
,,  a 


g§« 

&  fe    rt 


AIM 

— «     tS  o  ^ 


-2 

"3  <u" 


«C/3 

03 


«  «£ 

m 


CC  <N  r-  00  0»  O  T*  OS  O>  O>  rH  00  tO  T*  00  r-  CO  10  rH  OO  i-  T*  O  O  r-  O»  »O  rH  <N 


>  t*»  i-H  rH  lD  iH  < 


& 


:::::::::  •3SS3S»SSS35ga»s5S»;HHi>fJ 

O  S  oo  o  o>  •$<  co  io  eo  io>  o  06  in  m  o  T*<  o  w  rt< 


mtocQtttot^t^aSt^cQcQz 


Tf^T^COCOC^Oi^C^iO 


iO^rt<  CO  iC^CO^t^i^Gi  O>  GO  ^  CCOb^*O>flOiHiCi-H 


5'^io^ 


•s 


STATISTICAL  APPENDIX 


207 


en   o 
»     = 

£j     O 

111 

H    *? 


Q     p 
«    | 


58 


HO 


S 


W    | 

-         §        b 


W 


S^         « 


S 

g  tl 


fc 
o 3! ^^ 


—  §  i^  -  x  ^  :2  —  '--  —  — 


208 


RAIL  WAT  MAIL  SERVICE 


Q  -8 


co    j2 


g 

X    § 

W  H 

HJ  B 

PQ  2 

<  W 


^o  c 
8.  a 


S  2 

a  s 

s  - 

g  5 

CO  * 

O  o 

2  a 

£r  ^ 

*  s 

3  I 

ph  o 


O     a 
Si 

x    S 

tf     <u 

3  ? 
gl 

co  a> 
x) 
H 


o 

'S 

be  . 
tu  a> 
3E 


s 

SE 


«* 


II 


c 
bo  15-2 


iO  -£1  1^ 

a>  as  r-ir 
r-  «o  o  o 


:  :  :  :  :gj 


10  10  ic  •<*<  •<*<  T*  TJ<  co  eo  ec  <N  i-  rH  r-  i- 


•  lO  C^  C^l  CO  05  rH  O  rH  O  Cs  r-l  iH  rH  i—(  Ci  O  O 


o  c  c  c  c 


i 
t^t^r^t^-i^t^c^GO 


INDEX 


Acker,  new  argument  of,  p.  1 19. 
Acker  presents  resolutions,  p.  75. 
Acker,summaryof  his  inaccuracies, 

p.  118. 

Act  of  1845,  p.  18. 
Act  of  1873,  P-  l6»  20»  21,  107. 
Act  of  1873  and  speed,  p.  160. 
Act  of  1876,  p.  16,  20,  21,  107. 
Act  of  1878,  p.  1 6,  20,  21,  107. 
Act  of  1879,  p.  41. 
Adams,  Henry  C.,  p.  27,  51,  70,  94, 

123. 
American  Express  Co.,  business  of, 

p.  95- 

Average  distance  express  is  car- 
ried, p.  ico. 

Average  distance  mail  is  carried, 
p.  64,76,85. 

Average  load  of  postal  cars,  p.  32. 

Bangs,  George  S.,  p.  21,  34. 
Basing  rate  of  express  companies, 

p.  175- 
Bissell,  Postmaster-General,  p.  22, 

54- 

Bradley,  V.  J.,  p.  130. 
Brady,  Thomas  J.,  p.  1 12. 
Brown,  W.  C.,  p.  164. 
Burlington,  fast  mail  trains  of,  p. 

149- 

Canada,  postal  cars  in,  p.  131. 
Canada,  railway  mail  service  in,  p. 
127,  130. 


Canadian    Pacific    overland    mail 

subsidy,  p.  130. 
Cars,  mail,  fill  central  station,  p.  37, 

38. 
Cars  must  be  accessible  to  mail 

wagons,  p.  35,  37. 
Cars,  postal,  weight  of,  p.  145. 
Car  space  required  by  express,  p. 

3i. 

Car  space  required  by  mail,  p.  15, 
31,  33,  104,  160. 

Cars,  weight  of  express,  p.  33. 

Cars,  weight  of  mail,  p.  33,  145. 

Census,  statistics  of  express  ton- 
nage, p.  95. 

Chicago,  daily  shipments  of  mail 
from,  p.  157. 

City  distribution  in  post-office  cars, 
p.  105. 

Classification,  basis  of,  p.  30. 

Classification  of  express  matter, 
p.  174. 

Classification    and    railway    rates, 

p.  134- 

Clerks,  transportation  of,  p.  35. 
Compensation,  aggregate  increase 

of,  p.  117,  204. 
Compensation,  railway  mail  pay  a 

question  of,  p.  131. 
Contracts   of   express    companies 

with  railroads,  p.  170,  172. 
Cost  of  express  cars,  p.  40. 
Cost  of  first  mail  to  Circle  City, 

Alaska,  p.  195. 


209 


2IO 


INDEX 


Cost  of  mail  cars,  p.  40,  101. 

Cost  of  mail  service  cannot  be  as- 
certained, p.  28. 

Cost  of  service  and  railway  rates, 
p.  123. 

Cost  of  service,  distance  a  factor  in, 

P-  !39- 
Cost  of  service  theory  abandoned, 

p.  I36- 

Cost  of  service  theory  and  distance, 
p.  180. 

Cost  of  service  theory  of  rate-mak- 
ing, p.  179. 

Cowles,  J.  L.,  p.  139,  179- 

Creswell,  Postmaster-General,  p. 
21. 

Davis,  Madison,  testimony  of,  p. 

52,  54,  57,  62,  80,  82. 
Deficits  of  Post-Office  Department, 

P.  5L  155. 

Deficits,  plans  to  wipe  out,  p.  51. 

Delano,  F.  A.,  on  cost  of  speed,  p. 
165. 

Different  ways  mail  is  carried,  p. 
14. 

Distance  a  factor  in  cost  of  ser- 
vice, p.  139. 

Distance,  average,  mail  is  carried, 
p.  64,  85. 

Distance  postage  will  pay  trans- 
portation, p.  152. 

Distance,  why  disregarded  in  fix- 
ing rates  of  postage,  p.  184. 

Distributing  post-offices,  p.  105. 

Earling,  A.  J.,  p.  164. 

Earnings,  car  mile,  as  a  test  of 
fairness,  p.  146. 

Earnings,  train  mile,  test  of  fair- 
ness, p.  146. 


Earnings,  decline  of  mail,  freight 

and  passenger,  p.  25,93,  IQ6»  108, 

208. 

Earnings,  mail  and  express,  p.  168. 
Earnings  of  fast  mail  trains,  p.  149. 
Earnings,  reduction  of  mail,  p.  20, 

106,  108,  208. 
Earnings,  ton-mile,  from  mail  and 

express,  p.  43,  44,  76,  94,  95,  119, 

208. 
East  and  west  movement  of  mail, 

p.  158. 
Economy  and  volume  of  traffic,  p. 

151. 
Equipment  of    mail  and  express 

cars,  p.  40,  41,  42. 
Equipment,  weight  of,  p.  81,  88, 

199,  200,  201. 
Europe,  railway  mail  pay  in,  p. 

125,  126. 
Express,  average  length  of  haul, 

p.  100. 

Express  cars,  cost  of,  p.  40. 
Express  companies  carry  second- 
class  mail,  p.  87. 

Express  and  mail  earnings,  p.  168. 
Express  rates,  basis  of,  p.  174. 
Express  tonnage,  value  of  statistics 

of,  p.  95. 
Express,  typical  package  of,  p.  172. 

Fast  mail  trains,  evolution  of,  p. 

no. 

Fast  mail  trains,  earnings  of,  p.  149. 
Fast  mail  trains,  speed  of,  p.  150. 
Fast  mail  trains,  removal  of,  in 

1876,  p.  21,  107. 
Fast  trains  delay  other  trains,  p. 

167. 

Foreign  mail,  p.  79,  200,  201. 
Franked  matter,  p.  87, 109,200,201. 


INDEX 


211 


Free  county  mail,  p.  79,  199,  201. 

Free  transportation  of  express 
officials,  p.  35. 

Free  transportation  of  postal  of- 
ficials, p.  35. 

Freight,  mail  and  passenger  earn- 
ings, p.  93,  106,  208. 

Frequency  of  trains,  p.  21,  107. 

Fundamental  principles  of  railway 
mail  pay,  p.  125. 

Gardner,  W.  A.,  p.  164. 

Gary,  Postmaster-General,  p.  53* 
56. 

Government  demands,  p.  18. 

Great  Britain,  railway  mail  pay  and 
service  in,  p.  126. 

Gross  tonnage,  comparison  of  earn- 
ings on  the  basis  of,  p.  144. 

Guarding  mail  at  stations,  p.  38, 39. 

Handling  of  mail  and  express,  p. 

38. 
Haul,  average  length  of  express, 

p.  loo. 
Haul,  average  length  of  mail,  p.  64, 

76,  85. 
Hazen,  testimony  of  General,  p.  79, 

80. 

James,  Postmaster-General,  p.  21. 
Jewell,  Postmaster-General,  p.  21, 

65,  85. 
Julier,  H.  S.,  p.  95,  175. 

Knott,  Stuart  R.,  p.  145,  148. 
Kruttschnitt,  Julius,  p.  146. 

Land  grant  roads,  pay  of,  p.  16. 
Letters,  average  weight  of,  p.  154. 
Lighting  of  mail  and  express  cars, 
p.  41. 


Load  of  mail  cars  cannot  be  large, 
P-  !5.  31.  33.  104,  158,  150. 

Locomotive  failures  on  fast  trains, 
p.  166. 

Loud,  E.  F.,  p.  51,  56,  57,  62,  82, 83, 
9<5,  173- 

Mail  cars,  cost  of,  p.  40,  101. 

Mail  cranes  and  catchers,  p.  41. 

Mail  earnings  per  ton  mile  of  C. 
&  N.-W.  Rv.,  p.  24. 

Mail  and  express,  average  haul  of, 
p.  101. 

Mail  and  express  earnings,  p.  168. 

Mail  and  express  matter  different 
in  character,  p.  30. 

Mail  goes  on  fastest  trains,  p.  41. 

Mail  gravitates  to  fastest  trains,  p. 
41. 

Mail,  how  transported  in  early 
days,  p.  15. 

Mail,  increase  of,  carried  by  rail- 
ways, p.  115,  204. 

Mail  messenger  service,  p.  39,  40. 

Mail  service  demanded  by  Govern 
ment,  p.  18. 

Mail  traffic,  great  variations  in 
volume  of,  p.  36,  155. 

Mail,  transfer  of,  p.  38. 

Mail,  weighing  of,  p.  45,  119. 

Merchandise,  rate  of  express  com- 
panies, p.  175. 

Messenger  service,  p.  38. 

Mileage  of  mail  and  express  cars 
unequal,  p.  42. 

Mileage,  railway  mail  routes,  p.  114. 

Mitchell,  Senator,  p.  18. 

Moody,  W.  H.,  p.  96,  100. 

National  Board  of  Trade,  resolu- 
tions of,  p.  75. 


212 


INDEX 


Newcomb,  H.  T.,  p.  13,  19,  45,  154, 

193- 

North-Western,  fast  mail  trains  of 
p.  149. 

Package,  typical  express,  p.  172. 

Packer,  John  B.,  p.  21. 

Passenger  fares  and  theory  of  pub- 
lic utility,  p.  142. 

Passenger,  mail  and  freight  earn- 
ings, p.  26,  93,  106,  108,  208. 

Passes  given  to  postal  officials,  p. 

36,  37- 

Pay,  automatic  reduction  of  mail, 
p.  22,  28,  106,  109. 

Pay,  average  per  pound  for  railway 
carriage  of  mail,  p.  52,  72,  76. 

Pay,  basis  of  car,  p.  15,  18,  103. 

Pay,  cost  of  service  and  mail,  p.  28. 

Pay,  different  forms  of,  p.  15. 

Pay,  Government  does  not  pay  for 
all  the  mail  carried,  p.  45,  119. 

Pay  of  land  grant  roads,  p.  16. 

Pay  mail,  should  it  be  further  re- 
duced? p.  20,  106,  109. 

Pay  not  excessive,  because  roads 
compete  for  mail,  p.  19. 

Pay  for  post-office  cars  not  rental, 
p.  17, 103. 

Pay,  rates  of,  for  post-office  cars, 
p.  17,  101,  202. 

Pay,  reductions  of,  p.  16. 

Pay,  special  facility,  p.  15,  145. 

Pay  under  act  of  1873  was  insuf- 
ficient, p.  20,  107. 

Pay  on  weight  basis,  p.  16,  202,  203. 

Percentages  received  by  railways 
from  express  companies,  p.  170, 
172. 

Population,  slow  increase  of  rural, 
p.  116. 


Porterage  of  mail  and  express,  p. 
38. 

Post,  a  general  freight  and  passen- 
ger, p.  179. 

Postage,  average  amount  paid  per 
pound  of  letters,  p.  154. 

Postage,  when  absorbed  by  cost  of 
railway  carriage,  p.  152. 

Postal  deficit,  the,  p.  13,  19,  34. 

Postal  taxes,  who  pays  them,  p.  194. 

Pouches,  etc.,  weight  of,  p.  81,  88, 
199,  200,  201. 

Public  utility,  principle  of,  p.  125, 

133; 

Public  utility,  theory  of,  and  pass- 
enger fares,  p.  142. 

Public  utility,  application  of  theory 
of,  p.  139. 

Quadrennial  weighing  of  mail  un- 
satisfactory, p.  45,  119. 

Railroads,  most  effective  use  of, 
p.  138,  139- 

Railway  mail  and  star  route  ser- 
vice, p.  in. 

Railway  mail  pay,  fundamental 
principles  of,  p.  125. 

Railway  post-office  car  pay,  p.  15, 
101,  202,  206. 

Railway  post-office  cars  in  Canada, 
p.  131. 

Rates  for  mail  carriage  on  basis  of 
weight,  p.  16. 

Rates,  mail   and  express,  p.  168, 

175. 
Rate  of  payment  for  mail  carriage, 

p.  15,  107,  202,  203. 
Rates  for  postal  cars,  p.  17,  202. 
Rates,  railway,  best  adjustment  of, 

p.  137,  138,  139. 


INDEX 


2I3 


Rates,  railway,  and  cost  of  service, 
p.  123. 

Rates,  railway,  must  be  judged  as 
a  whole,  p.  136. 

Rates,  weight  alone  does  not  deter- 
mine, p.  31. 

Rental,  pay  for  postal  cars  not  a, 
p.  17,  103. 

Resolutions  of  National  Board  of 
Trade,  p.  75. 

Responsibility  of  railways  for  mail, 

P-  38,  39- 

Right  of  way,  mail  trains  have,  p. 
19. 

Santa  Fe",  percentage  received  from 
express  company  by,  p.  172. 

Scale  of  payment  for  mail  carriage, 
p.  15,  107,  202,  203. 

Second-class  mail  carried  by 
freight,  p.  87. 

Second-class  mail  carried  by  ex- 
press, p.  87. 

Separation  in  cars  and  expeditious 
delivery,  p.  14. 

Separation  of  mail,  change  in  place 
of,  p.  105. 

Separation,  space  required  for,  p. 
105. 

Service,  mail,  summary  of  that  de- 
manded, p.  18. 

Service,  mail  and  express  con- 
trasted, p.  28. 

Shallenberger,  W.  S.,  p.  15,  128. 

Simple  averages,  error  of,  p.  92. 

Sliding  scale,  should  it  be  extend- 
ed? p.  106,  107,  109. 

Smith,  Postmaster-General,  p.  128. 

Social  services  of  railway,  p.  135, 

136,  137. 
Space  as  a  basis  of  payment,  p.  18. 


Space  occupied  by  express,  p. 
3i. 

Space  occupied  by  mail,  p.  31, 
34- 

Space,  why  mail  requires  much, 
P-  33.  104,  155. 

Special  facility  pay,  p.  145. 

Speed,  and  the  act  of  1873,  P-  160- 

Speed,  cost  of,  p.  160. 

Speed  of  fast  mail  trains,  p.  150. 

Speed,  increase  of,  p.  21,  107. 

Speed  and  length  of  trains,  p. 
162. 

Speed  of  mail  trains  in  Great 
Britain,  p.  129. 

Star  route  service,  change  in  char- 
acter, p.  112. 

Star  route  service,  cost  of,  p.  in, 

113- 

Star  route  and  railway  mail  ser- 
vice, p.  in. 

Star  routes,  speed  on,  p.  115. 

Star  routes,  weight  of  mail  on,  p. 
in,  116. 

Subsidy,  special  facility,  p.  145. 

Summary  of  Government's  de- 
mands of  service,  p.  18. 

Tariff,  basis  of  express,  p.  174. 
Train-mile  earnings  of  fast  mail 

trains,  p.  149. 
Tynor,  Postmaster-General,  p.  21. 

Vilas,   Postmaster-General,  p.  60, 

77- 
Volume  of  mail  varies  widely,  p. 

155. 
Volume  of  mail  east  and  west,  p. 

155,  158,  159. 
Volume  of  traffic  and  economy,  p. 

151. 


2I4 


INDEX 


Wanamaker,   Postmaster-General, 

p.  61,  65,  77,  86. 

Wanamaker  weighing,  p.  61,  77. 
Weighing  of  1899,  description  of, 

p.  63. 
Weighing  of  1899,  results  of,  p.  157, 

109,  200,  20 1. 

Weighing  of  mail,  p.  45,  119, 
Weighings,  frequency  of  railway 

mail,  p.  45. 
Weight  carried  not  sole  criterion 

of  service,  p.  31. 
Weight  of  equipment,  p.  81,  88, 

109,  200,  201. 


Weight  of  mail  carried  by  railways, 

P- 59.  77,  119,204. 
Weight  of  mail  and  express  cars, 

P-  33- 
Weight  of  mail  sent  from  Chicago, 

p.  157- 

Weight  of  postal  cars,  p.  145. 

Weights,  intermediate,  not  paid 
for,  p.  47,  202. 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  and  the  over- 
land mail,  p.  113. 

White,  James  E.,  p.  32,  105. 

Wilson,  Postmaster-General,  p.  50, 
55- 


PRINTED  BY  R.  R.  DONNELLEY 
AND  SONS  COMPANY,  AT  THE 
LAKESIDE  PRESS,  CHICAGO,  ILL. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL     FINE     OF    25    CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $t.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


APR   17    1933 
--EB011995 

RECEIVED 
2  2  1995 
CM  DEPT 


LD  21-50m-l,'33 


YC  25108 


